INTRODUCTION. XV 
Fortunately, this proposition was rejected. I say fortunately, because when we 
had, in the way above mentioned, arranged the whole series of the older Paleozoic 
fossils in the Cambridge Museum geologically—putting to the best of our power every 
species (as well as every duplicate) in its proper physical group—Professor M*Coy saw in 
the successive groups of fossils no proof of that blending of the older and newer types which 
had been very confidently affirmed, and was virtually assumed in the Silurian nomenclature*. 
On the contrary, resting on the whole evidence of the Cambridge fossils, and before he had 
seen any part of the Silurian country, he asserted his conviction that there must have been 
some false grouping, or physical mistake, in the interpretation of the “Lower Silurian” 
sections, which could only be settled in the field. “If the present interpretation of the field 
sections in Siluria be right, I will,” he said, “abandon Palzontology.” 
We have since then, by short excursions made in three successive summers, put the 
previous opinion to the test; and have found that the supposed blending of the most 
characteristic Cambrian and Silurian types was a mistake arising out of a positive mis- 
interpretation of the sections; and that under the name Caradoc group, two unconnected 
and often unconformable groups had been improperly confounded. On the contrary, by 
making a break in the Palzeozoic series, where nature herself had made it, and by cutting 
off the May Hill sandstone from the Caradoc group, and by placing it at the base of the 
“Silurian Systemt,” we could bring the physical and fossil evidence of the whole Lower 
Paleozoic series into a good harmony and accordance. 
Having, in these prefatory remarks, told nearly all that I am called upon to tell, 
of the personal labours of Professor M°Coy during the progress of this work; I might 
go on at once to the corrected Tabular View of the whole British Paleozoic Series, and 
the short comment I have to make upon it. But I cannot do so without a few parting 
words of truth and good-will, which would not perhaps have been written had my friend 
been still amongst us; but which I may give with less reserve, now that he is so far 
removed from us, that I am deprived of his ever-ready help, and that we are never, I fear, 
to meet again. 
From his childhood he was a lover of natural history; and being destined for the 
medical profession, he was, in early life, initiated in the studies of human and comparative 
anatomy, which he united to that literary training, which marks the education of an English 
gentleman. Hence his knowledge, as he advanced in life, was never exclusively concen- 
trated on minute and unconnected facts; but was at once extensive and solid, well-grounded 
* When M. Barrande first communicated his account of the Bohemian fossils to the Geological Society of London, it 
appeared that the whole series might naturally be separated into two divisions in conformity with the order of superposition; 
and that between the upper and lower division there was but a very small percentage of common species. In commenting 
upon this statement, I heard it affirmed, by one of the most distinguished members of the Society, that taking the Silurian 
rocks of England collectively, there were more than sixty per cent. of species common to the upper and lower divisions! 
The statement was not contradicted; and at the time was, no doubt, believed by many who were present. 
+ The results alluded to above are described in the Journal of the Geological Society of London for 1852; and in 
the “ Philosophical Magazine” for October, November, and December, 1854. Taylor and Francis, London. 
