648 PRESIDEXT S ADDRESS. 



apart, avIioso formatioiis aro widely distinct in every respect. In 

 an ingenious manner lie made some generalisations drawn from 

 comparison between the fossil corals and what he believed to be 

 the coral fauna of Australia. For the latter he had nothing to 

 depend upon but the very doubtful habitats in the work of 

 Edwards and Ilaime. It was not to be expected that such 

 conclusions would be of any value. Professor Duncan subsequently 

 made a vcview of the tertiary fossil ^rZ/m/ of Australia, comparing 

 them with existing forms on our coasts. In both these essays it 

 was abundantly evident that any conclusions must be imperfect 

 without a better knowledge of our living fauna. The difficulty 

 which I had experienced in the beginning was still the obstacle. 

 It seemed very clear that the problem would never be solved 

 unless the line of inquiry indicated by Sir Charles Lyell were 

 followed. In 1877 I tried to aid this by a complete census of the 

 marine mollusca of Tasmania, in which Colony I had named and 

 described a very large number of tertiary fossils occurring in a 

 small patch of tertiary age on the north coast of that island. But 

 whatever individual effort may have done, I think we owe more 

 to the Linna3an Society within the last few years than to all that 

 has been previously effected. Since its establishment we have 

 seen what I must be excused for calling immense strides made in 

 the knowledge of the marine zoology of our coasts. We have 

 now very complete information on our Mollusca and Crustacea, 

 our Fishes, Corals, Urchins, and Bryozoa. If the problem of the 

 age of our tertiary beds were to be dealt with now, general 

 conclusions could be formed which subsequent discoveries will not 

 disturb to any great extent. Such an attempt has been made by 

 Professor Tate, of Adelaide, as well as in essays of my own in the 

 Transactions of the Eo^^al Societies of Tasmania and New South 

 Wales. Professor P. Martin Duncan in his essay deprecates the 

 use of such terms as Pliocene, Miocene, and Eocene by Australian 

 Geologists, and prefers the terms Upper, Middle, and Lower 

 Cainozoic, as tending less to mislead in our present imperfect 



