1822.] Mr. Weaver’s Geological Remarks. 97 
tish writers whose names are recorded either in their own distinct 
works, or in the Geological, Philosophical, and Wernerian Trans- 
actions, or in periodical publications, are all invaluable contri- 
butions to the same effect. Above the chalk, the history of our 
planet has been further elucidated by the inestimable researches 
of Cuvier, Brongniart, Mr. Webster, Prof. Buckland, and other 
geologists pursuing that branch of the subject. But all these 
labours, whose merits and importance can never be too highly 
appreciated, so far from impugning the general facts advanced 
by Werner, serve rather to confirm and establish them. 
The Comparative View of floetz formations, which I submitted 
to the public in the Annals of Philosophy, Oct. 1821, is consist- 
ent with the main positions of Werner, though, from.the mode 
of considering them, there may seem to be some difference : 
this, however, is rather apparent than real. It arises from the 
following circumstances: 1. In the carboniferous series, pro- 
ducing the limestone and the coal as distinct formations, while 
Werner considered them only as members of his first floetz 
sandstone, or rothe todtliegende, formation: 2. In like manner, 
in the gypseous and saliferous series, producing the weisslie- 
gende or calcareous conglomerate as a distinct formation, while 
by Freiesleben and others it is included in the magnesian lime- 
stone formation : 3. As a consequence of the foregoing, in consi- 
dering the magnesian limestone as belonging to the second floetz 
series: and 4. From distributing the floetz formations into four 
principal series, founded, as I conceive, on natural distinctions ; 
namely, on their relative position in the order of succession, 
their mineralogical characters, the organic.remains which they 
respectively contain, and the mutual affinities of the formations 
which constitute each series or group. In this view there is no 
real incongruity ; for, in fact, had the carboniferous limestone 
appeared in force in the north of Germany, it certainly would 
have been designated by Werner as the first floetz limestone ; 
and this, according to the established method of that naturalist, 
who, in arranging the mineral masses of the globe, was led to 
distribute the predominant into principal formations, and the 
incidental into subordinate. Bearing this in mind, the carboni- 
ferous limestone would have been his first floetz limestone 
formation, and as a necessary consequence, the magnesian 
limestone would have become his second floetz limestone. The 
whole difference, therefore, is a mere question of enumeration. 
Here let me add: a few words on the meaning of the term 
floetz. It was employed by Lehman, and adopted by Werner. 
English writers have repeatedly asserted that it ps flat or 
horizontal. Suchis not necessarily its import. The French trans- 
lator of Leliman more nearly expressed its sense by roches en. 
couches. Floetz literaily signifies a mineral bed, and floetzgebirge 
New Series, vol.1v, H 
