1822.] Mr.. Weaver's Geological Remarks. 95 
adjacent to the Quantock Hills, I may here incidentally observe 
that both in Devon and the SW. of Somerset, the magnesian. 
limestone formation, properly speaking, appears, to be wanting in 
the regular order of succession, between the new or calcareous. 
conglomerate and the new red sandstone. 
. Having thus entered my decided protest against, considering, 
the new red conglomerate of England, and the rothe todtliegende 
of Werner, as equivalent terms, I now proceed to perform a 
similar task in respect of the old red sandstone and carbonife- 
rous limestone of England ; the former of which, it is said, is a: 
variety of the greywacke of Werner, and the latter his transition 
limestone ; and upon this view, the charge is raised that the 
Wernerians have confounded, the carboniferous series with the 
transition. Is this charge just? 
In the Netherlands the two series certainly have been con- 
founded together; but by whom primarily? by French writers 
on that tract, e.g. Omalius d’Halloy and M. Clere, neither of 
whom, I presume, will pronounce himself to be of the Freyberg 
scnool. It is true, Von Raumer, in his Geognostic Sketches in 
1815, has quoted Omalius d’Halloy’s statements without inquiry, 
and D’Aubuisson has done the'same in his Traité de Géognosie 
in 1819, and to that extent they, as well as other Continental 
writers citing to the same effect, are doubtless chargeable with 
the mistake. Yet are such oversights, springing from a foreign 
source, to be visited on Werner and his followers? Has Wer- 
ner himself, or Von Buch, or Freiesleben, for instance, con- 
founded the carboniferous series with the transition? [ do not 
anticipate an affirmative to this question. In fact, how can the 
ald red sandstone of Britain, which I have shown to correspond 
in all its relations, perfectly with the old red sandstone of Wer- 
ner, be held to be a variety of the greywacke of that naturalist. 
(even putting mineralogical character out of the question), or 
how can the carboniferous limestone be said to be his transition 
limestone, when both in_ his! view occupy’ totally different 
positions ? 
It is very true, aid must be admitted by ali conversant with 
the subject, that the red sandstone and the limestone of the car- 
honiferous series often closely resemble the red sandstone and 
the limestone of the transition series, so much so; as in hand spe- 
cimens. to be scarcely distinguishable from each other, and this 
similarity is further increased by. several. kinds of organic 
remains being common to both limestones ; and it is also true, 
that what have been called graduations from one series into the 
other may be observed in certain situations, and so far appear- 
ances may be deceptive, Yet no attentive geologist can: be 
deceived. in this particular, if he take that view of the subject 
whivh ought always to be taken; namely, if he follow. through- 
aut the line of contact. between the carboniferous series and the 
