322 Mr. Weaver on the [May, 



controversy, a desire of supporting and vindicating the true 

 state of the case, impels me once more to resume the pen. 



Mr. Conybeare insists that the rothetodtliegende is the equi- 

 valent of the calcareous or new conglomerate of England, over- 

 lying;; the carboniferous series ; and he even contends that 

 Freiesleben considers and treats the rothetodtliegende and the 

 true coal formation as appertaining to two different series ; add- 

 ing, that the invariable order in ascending is, 1. Coal formation. 

 2. Porphyry. 3. Rothetodtliegende ; and sections are quoted 

 from Keferstein, as demonstrative of this position. 



I have already stated that the great object of Freiesleben's 

 extended work was the description of the four following groups, 

 or formations ; opposite to which I place their English equiva- 

 lents. They are considered in four sections : 



I. The upper or shell limestone? Liag and oolitic gerieg# 

 formation 3 



II. The upper, or newer, or va-"j 



negated, sandstone forma- > New red sandstone formation, 

 tion J 



III. The lower or alpine limeO Magnesianlimestoneformation, 

 stone formation, including I including the calcareous or 

 the weissliegende as the low- | new conglomerate as the 

 est bed J lowest bed. 



IV. The lower or older sand-"") 



stone, or rothetodtliegende, j> Carboniferous series, 

 formation J 



I have maintained that the weissliegende alone (and not the 

 rothetodtliegende) is the representative of the calcareous or new 

 conglomerate of England.* The general description of the new 

 conglomerate is to be found in the Annals of Philosophy for 

 November, 1821, and more at large in Freiesleben, vol. hi. p. 239 

 — 280. It is to that author the Germans owe the clear exposition 

 of the true character of the weissliegende, and the proof that it 

 belongs to a newer series than the carboniferous ; while almost 

 all preceding German writers had considered the weissliegende 

 as the uppermost bed of that series, and included it accordingly, 

 and some even had called it rothliegende. But to continue so 

 to apply the latter denomination is obviously to persevere in an 

 antiquated error, exploded by Freiesleben. And conversely, to 



* I purposely avoid using in this paper the term " new red conglomerate or sand- 

 stone," by which this formation has been partly designated in England ; since it has 

 led, and, if continued, is likely still to lead to misconception. As used by some English 

 writers, it denotes the calcareous conglomerate ; sometimes it includes the magnesian 

 limestone, and sometimes it is extended to the new red sandstone formation also, pro- 

 perly so called. A vagueness of language thus arises, which is productive of consider- 

 able obscurity ; offering nearly a counterpart to that which has proceeded from the indis- 

 criminate use of the term rothetodtliegende in Germany, as applied to all parts of the 

 carboniferous series. 



