and the Paleozoic System of England, 503 



by the name Llandeilo flag, is to blink, and not to solve, the 

 difficulties of a most intricate and perplexing country ; but to 

 determine the western emergence of the Llandeilo flag of the 

 Towy (whatever be the mineral type it puts on) would be a real 

 step in physical geology. Nor is the country altogether without 

 fossils ; for example, in the district north of the DeviFs Bridge, 

 and in the upper valley of the Cothi, where to the well-known 

 Diplograpsus pristis M'Coy added a second old Cambrian grap- 

 tolite. Nor should I yet despair of finding May Hill or Wen- 

 lock beds among the great folds of South Wales ; but I must not 

 lengthen out a paper already far too long, by enlarging on 

 speculations and hypotheses. 



Once for all, then, I confidently affirm, that the great Cam- 

 brian series is a natural and true series, and that its subdivisions 

 have been rightly named. On the other hand, I contend that the 

 classification and nomenclature of the same series in the scheme 

 of the Government Survey is erroneous and untenable. 1st. 

 Because it overlooked the true physical and palseontological base 

 of the Silurian series ; 2nd. Because its nomenclature is but an 

 expansion of Silurian names derived from sections which were 

 not true to nature. 3rd. Because no section, within the limits 

 of Siluria, gives us a good older Palaeozoic type. 4th. Because 

 the nomenclature of the Cambrian series (as given in the Survey) 

 was not deduced from the natural groups ; but, on the contrary, 

 the natural groups were so packed as to fall in with a previous 

 (Silurian) nomenclature, which was based on erroneous sections. 

 5th. Because it introduces two difi'erent and incongruous schemes 

 of nomenclature into one system, and consequently involves the 

 nomenclature in most needless geographical contradictions and 

 incongruities. There ought never to have been any controversy 

 on the questions I have been discussing; and since the establish- 

 ment of the May H ill sandstone, there is now at least no shadow 

 of reason for its continuance. 



Conclusion. ♦ 



Before I close this paper permit me to notice, as shortly as I 

 can, one or two points which do not affect the conclusions I have 

 vindicated, but do belong to the history of the controversy, and 

 to my conduct in it. 



1. I was not the aggressor. For years I did not care a straw 

 for any little points of diff'erence, or any mistakes I might have 

 remarked upon. For I felt certain that I had the older palaeo- 

 zoic series of England well in hand, and I did not believe it 

 possible that any one could dispossess me of it ; or if he could 

 show good claim to any part of it, so far I was ready, either to 

 give way, or to go shares with him. It was only when my 



