Geology, 465 



Art. IV. Geology, 



MiSTATEMENTS in Ures New System of Geology. — Sir, In common with 

 every lover of natural history, I hailed the first appearance of your periodi- 

 cal with pleasure ; and the gratification has been increased by every suc- 

 cessive Number, so admirably is it calculated to promote the objects for 

 which it was designed. 1 live in a remote part of the country, and can in- 

 dulge my favourite pursuits but partially, not being within reach of any 

 scientific library, and not having the means to purchase the works on science 

 which I require. I am, therefore, obliged to economise, and be guided in 

 my purchase by the opinions of the reviews in respectable journals. I know 

 so little of geology, and yet feel so deeply interested in that science, from 

 the novel and extraordinary facts which your Magazine and other works 

 have from time to time noticed, that I had put by ray little pittance to 

 purchase an elementary work on the subject ; and seeing in Brande^s Jour' 

 nal, and other periodicals, a very high eulogium passed on Dr. Ure's " New 

 System of Geology, in which the great Revolutions of the Earth and animated 

 Nature are reconciled at once to Modern Science and Sacred History," I was 

 induced to send my guinea to the bookseller, and procured the volume so 

 much praised by those who must certainly have been capable of judging, 

 and which was ushered into the world with such high pretensions. Now, 

 Sir, I do not profess to be even a tyro in geology, but I am acquainted with 

 a few facts, which (if I am not greatly mistaken) are sadly distorted and 

 misrepresented in the work alluded to. I will but briefly notice a few 

 instances of what appear to me to be errors, convinced that, if I am cor- 

 rect, you will think it your duty to guard your readers against a system 

 which is likely to be the more injurious to the science of geology, since it 

 emanates from so respectable a quarter, and has been praised by such high 

 authority. You must indeed, Mr. Editor, allow me to remark, that it is as 

 much your duty to guard your readers against erroneous publications, as it 

 is to point out the most valuable ones to their notice. 1 have neither the 

 time, inclination, nor ability to attempt a review of such a work as Dr. Ure's : 

 I merely wish to notice some of its more glaring errors; and, if 7?zy remarks 

 are incorrect, shall be most happy to be set right, and offer all due apology 

 for my presumption. The first error (and it is an important one) that 

 strikes me is in the Table of Equivalents (pp. 136, 137.)» in which the lias 

 is placed above the coral rag, cornbrash, Bath oolite, &c., and immediately 

 beneath the ^^ green sand J ^* The "green sand" comes next to the lias, 

 and the craie inferieuse of the French is named as the equivalent. Where, 

 then, should the Hastings' beds and the Purbeck be placed? for the chalk 

 is next in order. In this instance, as in another hereafter noticed, Dr. Ure 

 seems to have forgotten that the sands and clays, below the green sand of 

 the chalk, form, together with the Purbeck, a well-characterised fresh-water 

 formation, separating the chalk from the oolite. 



At pp. 272, 273. the acknowledged imperfect account of the beds between 

 the chalk and oolite, given in Messrs. Conybeare and Phillip's work, is in- 

 serted almost verbatim ; Dr. Ure, as in the instance above quoted, losing 

 sight of the discoveries which the researches of later geologists have brought 

 to light. Accordingly, he enumerates the strata as, 1. Iron sand; 2. Inter- 

 jacent clay, or Weald clay; 3. Green sand ; 4. Chalk marl ; and adds, " all 

 these strata are probably of marine origin : " and, in noticing the " iron 

 sand " (p. 274.), he remarks, " the organic remains of this bed have been 

 imperfectly explored: they are not numerous; but the iVautilus, JSelem- 

 nites, Kmmomtes, O'streae, Terrebratulae, and spines of an Echinus cidaris 

 have been found." Now, Sir, I would respectfully submit, that all this is 

 palpably wrong ; and how Dr. Ure, with Mr. Mantell's work on the fossils 

 of the Hastings' bed before him (and which he repeatedly quotes in his 



