( 504 ) 
dations and marginal notes have been introduced, but he did not get 
farther than that. This is much to be regretted as it was now not 
until 1875 that his insights and opinions found adherents among 
the German geologists; it was the year when TorerL on the me- 
.morable day of Nov. 3 by his lecture for the German geological 
society in connection with the glacial scratches once more discovered 
by him on the Muschelkalk of Rüdersdorf convinced different colleagues 
of the correctness of his theory. For, if the above-mentioned essay 
had been printed as early as 1867 it would have contributed in a 
high measure to propagate the novel ideas more rapidly. 
The bulky manuscript written in French and provided with French, 
Swedish and Dutch annotations (the Dutch annotations are by STARING, 
who was a members of the jury, as well as Bosqver and vAN BREDA) 
is at present again in possession of the Dutch Society of Sciences. 
The maps (2) and plate mentioned in the text are not wanting. 
For further details about the contents the reader is referred to 
ToreLL’s biography by Hotmstrém (35, p. 18—25). 
UPPER SILURIAN BOULDERS. 
In the description of the Upper Silurian boulders various difficulties 
present themselves, which all may be reduced to the fact that the 
exact succession of strata in the Seandinavian-baltic zone is not known 
for certain. Especially with regard to the eastern balticum the struc- 
ture has long ago been made out by Scumipr and never refuted by 
anybody that I know of. His division of the strata in Gothland, on 
the contrary, corresponding with MurcHison’s conceptions has found 
but few adherents, and is especially called in question by LINDSTRÖM, 
who has a quite different opinion. This discrepancy as to the strue- 
ture of Gothland, which has already existed many years, has not 
yet been satisfactorily removed. If must be said, however, that well- 
nigh all other investigators who have pronounced their opinion about 
this question, have taken Linpstrém’s side; a.o. Dames, who has 
made a division which differs but a little from Laxpsrröm’s; then 
Srouuey, Wimax, Barunr, Kayser and others. | myself, owing to 
my short stay in Gothland, am not so fortunate as to be able to 
pronounce a decided opinion, though it does seem to me that, on 
the whole, Scumipt’s arguments are stronger than LINDSTRÖM's, so 
that it appears scarcely possible to me that new investigations will 
confirm the opinions of the latter in every respect. In collecting fos- 
sils im Gothland, I frequently doubted of the correctness of Linpstr6m’s 
