100 Chronieles of Science. [ Jan., 
sanctity from having been the birth-places, abodes, or burial-places 
of their monarchs. Europeans are forbidden to enter them, and 
although some of them are places of large size, they have not yet 
been laid down on our maps. The belief in the influence of the 
spirits of their deceased monarchs is one of the chief features of 
their religiou, and is stated by Mr. Ells to enter into all their most 
important ceremonies, and to influence the actions and policy of 
royalty. 
VIL. GEOLOGY AND PALASONTOLOGY. 
(Including the Proceedings of the Geological Society.) 
One of the most important contributions to British Geology that 
has appeared during the past quarter is a memoir by Mr. Searles 
V. Wood, jun., entitled: “ Remarks in Explanation of the Map of 
the Upper Tertiaries of the Counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, 
Middlesex, Hertford, &c., &., and accompanying Sections.” In 
this paper the author further explains, and somewhat modifies, his 
classification of the glacial deposits in the east of England; but as 
his views have already been noticed in these Chronicles (vol. 1, pp. 
330 and 478), we need give no introductory explanation. He now 
divides the Glacial deposits into Upper, Middle, and Lower Drift ; 
the Middle and Lower Drifts having hitherto formed his “ Upper 
and Lower Series of the Lower Drift.” A difficulty which we sug- 
gested formerly, Mr. Wood has met to some extent by calling all 
the more recent sands and gravels Post-glacial, a very good name 
as a distinction, though not strictly true. Mr. Wood’s views differ 
considerably from those generally accepted ; for instance, he is of 
opinion that the Chillesford beds (usually thought to be of Norwich 
Crag age, or a little newer) belong to his Middle Drift series. This 
Middle Drift is an important formation; it consists chiefly of sands 
and gravels, and intervenes between the Boulder-clay (Upper Drift) 
and. Boulder-till (Lower Drift), and we should not be at all sur- 
prised at its ultimately furnishing the key to a comparison of our 
Glacial series with that of Scotland. The differences in the de- 
posits of the two countries are rather remarkable (compare vol. i1., 
pp- 679 and 680), and an explanation of them would doubtless 
soon lead to a well-grounded interpretation of the whole of the 
phenomena of the Glacial period. Perhaps the map and numerous 
sections are the most valuable portions of the paper. 
The upper limit of the Eocene formation, the lower boundary of 
the Miocene, and the question whether the Oligocene of Professor 
Beyrich really forms a natural group of deposits, have frequently of 
late years formed the subject of discussion, and even of controversy. 
Auy contribution to the facts of the case must therefore be yery wel- 
