Mr. Farey's Reply to Dr. Gilhy. 279 



*^ ignoran9e,** which led him into those improprieties : and so 

 far from appearing to think it necessary, to apologize for the 

 use he had thus made of Professor Jameson's Name, again speaks 

 on the same siihject (p. 183) hy his authority and permission!. 



In page 188, Dr. G. unhandsomely charges me, with wishing 

 to introduce confuswn, as to the Geology of England: — if 

 having been the first to bring forward more /acts than any one 

 else, regarding the stratification of our Island, and having occa- 

 sionally drawn the Inferences that these seemed to me to war- 

 rant, be manifestations of the design with which t!ie Doctor 

 charges me, I niu^t plead guilty tliereto (although I may now 

 further thus offend) : — but fortunately for me, the Doctor's Letter 

 sufficiently shows the source of all the confusion of which he 

 complftins, viz. the rashness and pertinacity of himself and 

 brother Geognosis, in their attempts to garble and bend the 

 facts of the British Stratification, to suit their favourite German 

 Theory: — a vain attempt, I venture once more to assure them. 



The Doctor in his last communication, p. 185, affects to com- 

 plain, of " perplexing language and confused description," in 

 my Account of the Strata of Derbyshire : and this apparently, 

 because I have not written in the fashionable (Anglo-Wernerian) 

 jargon, although the same would have been quite unintelligible to 

 the people of the County, /or whose use, principally, the Report 

 was inttnded by the Board of y\griculture, who printed it : the 

 Doctor might, however, have learned from p. 305, of your 

 xlist volume, that the very learned Geognosts who sat in judge- 

 ment upon, and ultimately rejected a very detailed account of 

 the Strata, regarding which he seems yet in such perplexity, (see 

 vol. xlii, p. 55 Note), so far from alleging the imiiitelligibleness 

 of my descriptions, of the Coal-measures in particular, have 

 pronounced them to be, " the independent. Coal-formation" ! 

 and surely, to this authority, all good Geognosts ought to bow 

 with rc;verence : I will however take the liberty of dissenting 

 from their decision, and of maintaining, that the name itself, 

 with every effort at defining this independtnt formation, which 

 I have seen, are as truly ridiculous, as the attempts have been, 

 in England or in the South-west parts of Scotland, at applying 

 it to |)urticular Coal-fields : — the independcnl Coal-formation, 

 belongs to " the ideal woild of Werner,' and not to any part 

 of Britain, I believe, 



It seems rather extraordinary, after the facts which I have 

 mentioned in p. 1G6, of your last volume, that Dr. G. should 

 assert p. 183, " the measures accompanying the Coal," in Der- 

 byshire, to be " quite different from those usually associated 

 with the Coal ia England:" — the identity of all of our Pritish 



S 4 GoaU 



