Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 203 



district covered by the paper, and he wished to make one or 

 two corrections. The first was with regard to the sections 

 described on the Myrniong Creek. It had been stated that 

 the ghicial deposit was overlaid by older basalt. This part 

 of the map was outside of that published by the Geological 

 Survey, and he would like to say that this basalt was 

 probably to be referred to the upper and newer basalt, and 

 not the older. In the not-e, it had also been stated that a 

 certain section was probably an example of contorted till. 

 On further examination, however, this had proved to be not 

 till, but what was called Mesozoic sandstone, and the apparent 

 contortions were due to concretionary action. Also at another 

 section where the glacial deposit was overlaid with sandstone, 

 it had been difficult to decide whether that sandstone was 

 simply associated with till, or belonged to the Mesozoic 

 sandstone in the surrounding district. They were now of 

 opinion that the overlying sandstone .was probably of 

 Mesozoic age. On the Korkuperrimul Creek the glacial till 

 was overlaid by basalt, which they thought was to be assigned 

 to the upper basalt. But the evidence on which the distinc- 

 tion between upper and lower basalt was often drawn, 

 seemed to be somewhat feeble. 



The Rev. Mr. Cresswell said he had a few criticisms to 

 offer upon the paper which Mr. Officer had kindl}^ lent him, 

 and he would begin by recording his appreciation of the 

 value of the paper. It was a most interesting and complete 

 paper, although he was not able to agree with all the 

 conclusions arrived at by the authors. From the evi- 

 dence adduced by other observers, as for instance Mr. 

 Selwyn, Sir Richard Daintree, Dr. Lendenfeld, and Mr. 

 Dunn, there could be no doubt that in former ages 

 there had existed distinct glaciers in the Alpine districts 

 of Victoria and New South Wales, but it seemed to liini 

 to be very questionable whether those glaciers extended 

 any distance from those particular regions. He would 

 begin by making a general criticism upon the terms 

 used. He thought it somewhat misleading to appl}'- the 

 term "till" to two formations which, according to the 

 authors' showing, were so very widely separated in the 

 geological series — one being apparently a Pleistocene glacial 

 deposit of some kind, and the other being a glacial depo.sit 

 belonging to the Miocene age. He thought it far better to 

 keep the term "till" for well-known and acknowledged 



