158 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 



for these additions 1 For my own part I think not. From an 

 Australian point of view we find Professor Tate in his inaugural 

 address to this Association in 1893^ remarking, "Thus in Aus- 

 tralia, as in other Continental areas, there are developments of 

 Azoic, Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, and Cainozoic rocks ; and, moreover, 

 the geological sequence of the chief marine formations are 

 fairly well represented — from Archaean to Permo-Carboniferous, 

 from Trias to Cretaceous, and from Eocene to those deposits now 

 in process of accumulation." 



The same author also states,- " It is only in South Australia 

 and West Australia that the metamorphic i^ocks are actually 

 known to be Pre-Cambrian, but those elsewhere, unless they can 

 be shown to be transmuted Palaeozoic rocks, may be most 

 conveniently referred to the same period. The grandest exempli- 

 fication of the Archaeans is in the Mount Lofty Range of South 

 Australia." Further investigation has changed the face of this 

 question, for Mr. W. Howchin, F.G.S., in a paper contributed 

 to the Royal Society of South Australia in 1897,^ states — 

 ''Discoveries have been recently made, however, in these so- 

 called Archaean rocks which have an important bearing on this 

 subject, and on the most convincing evidence determines the 

 basal beds of the Mount Lofty Ranges to be in part, if not 

 wholly, of Lower Cambrian Age." 



If the above reasoning of Professor Tate holds at all, it surely 

 means that we have at present only extremely slight foundation, 

 and that perhaps somewhat doubtful, for the use or retention of 

 the term Pre-Cambrian, let alone Archaean, etc. 



Even if the retention of the term Pre-Cambrian is found in 

 any way convenient, it certainly seems most suitable to regard it 

 as subsidiary to Palaeozoic and not to rank as an equivalent 

 division. Such palaeontological evidence as has hitherto been 

 forthcoming from rocks regarded as Pre-Cambrian outside 

 Australia does not appear in any way to warrant the separation 

 from the Palaeozoic. 



Then with regard to Post-Tertiary or Quarternary, these terms 

 are surely superfluous, for all the evidence we have clearly 



1 A.A.A.S., Adelaide, 1893, p. 30. 



2 Loc. cit., p. 47. 



3 Trans. Roy. Soc. S.A., 1897, p. 74. 



