1864. | The Geological Society. : 991 
exaggerated their importance. However, we give this conclusion in 
his own words :— 
“ Believing that the causes that produced physical changes were 
much the same in former times as now, both in kind and intensity, 
(speaking generally, when spread over long epochs), then the upheaving, 
contorting and dislocation of the strata, and the vast denudations they un- 
derwent before resubmergence, generally represent a period of time longer 
than that occupied respectively by the deposition of the formation disturbed, 
or of that which overlies it unconformably. 
“Tn the present state of our knowledge these things cannot be 
proved, but we may strongly suspect them to be probably true, and if 
they are so, then it follows that the periods of time stratigraphically un- 
represented during the Paleozoic epoch were much longer than those of 
which the various formations of that epoch bear witness.” 
2. A paper by Professor Rupert Jones on “ Fossil Hstherie and their 
Distribution” may be viewed as an abstract of, though differing some- 
what in scope from, his “‘ Monograph of the fossil Estherie” published 
by the Paleontographical Society. It is a very favourable specimen of 
philosophical paleontology, and shows that the diligent study of an 
apparently small subject may lead to large results. 
Besides the endeavour to fix definitely the ages of the several de- 
posits in which Estherie occur, by means of the little fossils themselves, 
assisted by concurrent testimony drawn from other sources, the chief 
object of the paper is to prove that the fossil Estherie, like their recent 
congeners, inhabited fresh and brackish water. The successful manner 
in which the author manages to dispose of apparently associated marine 
shells is not a little instructive, as it shows the necessity of scrupulously 
exact observations respecting the particular bed in which a fossil is 
found, most of these marine shells being shown to occur either a little 
above or a little below the Hstheriw; and the same with regard to 
erystals of salt. Even in the case of a Lingula occurring in the same 
bed as an Hstheria, Professor Jones is at no loss, for he finds that the 
Lingula “in successive beds appears smaller and smaller in size, until 
it is dwarfed and disappearing, when Estheria minuta comes in; as if 
more and more fresh water invaded the area, unfavourably to the 
Lingule and ultimately bringing in the Estherie.” 
3. The relation of the Permian fauna and flora to those of the Car- 
boniferous period has of late years been fruitful of discussion, most 
geologists being now inclined to regard the Permian as the concluding 
portion of the Carboniferous epoch. 
Ina paper on the Lower Carboniferous Brachiopoda of Nova Scotia, 
Mr. Davidson gives an excellent account of the present state of this 
question, and adds many new facts in favour of the view that the Per- 
mian is not really a group distinct from the Carboniferous. 
Sir R. I. Murchison also enters somewhat fully into this question 
in a paper on the Permian rocks of Bohemia; but, were it not for the 
_ proverbial affection which every father bears towards his own children, 
it would be difficult to understand why this veteran geologist should 
so strenuously oppose a view which, besides being supported by nearly 
all the geologists and paleontologists ,;who have specially studied the 
