360 7 he Scottish Naturalist. 



lian ; ^ and it has always been doubtful whether it was not. . . . 

 The so-called Wanlockhead bit of quartz, apart from the doubt 

 as to its origin, has but a speck of gold on it, and would be 

 hardly worth figuring." 



The opinion of the assistant-keeper of the same department — 

 Thos. Davies, F.G.S. — as to the probably Australian origin of 

 the Wright specimen, is quoted by the Rev. Dr Porteous,^ and 

 is as follows : — 



" The specimen in massive quartz-rock in our collection I 

 suspect to be Australian. We had only the dealer's assurance 

 that it was purchased out of an old collection made in the Wan- 

 lockhead district. The specimen is about 5 inches x 2 x 2, 

 and contains but little gold in one or two places. It consists of 

 massive quartz, without any other rock whatever, and may have 

 been part of a vein, judging from the appearance of one of its 

 sides. . . . The specimens of gold from Wanlockhead were pur- 

 chased of Mr Wright, a London dealer in minerals, in i864."2 



Desirous of knowing the grounds of his suspicion as to its 

 Australian nativity, I applied to Mr Davies himself in March 

 last ; and the following was his prompt and courteous explana- 

 tion (of date March 1878) :— 



"I was only led by the great similarity of the quartz to that 

 from Australia, and that we had but the word of Mr Bryce 

 Wright, senr., that it was from that locality (Wanlockhead), the 

 label accompanying the two specimens appearing to refer only to 

 that in grains. The gold is plainly visible upon one corner of 

 the specimen." 



■^ The liability of Australian to take the place of native gold-quartz in our 

 pul)lic museums was specially pointed out in an article on " Australian (lokl- 

 Quartz in Scotland. By our Gold Commissioner on the Sutherland Gold- 

 Field in 1869," ' Northern Ensign ' (Wick), April 25, 1S78. 



2 'God's Treasure-House,' p. 53. 



^ In a memorandum from Mr Davies, of date July 1878, he says the 

 specimen "was sold here by the late Bryce Wright, se?!):, in June 1864. 

 He said that it was out of an old collection ; and the label accompanying the 

 specimen was not in his handwriting, nor in that of any member of his fam- 

 ily." It is not a little singular, then, that t/ic present Mr Bryce M. Wright, 

 junior, describes himself — as we have seen — as first the purchaser, and next the 

 vendor, of the Wright specimen. 



