1823.] liothetodlliegende and Weiss/iegende. 337 



improbable that the old red sandstone itself should contain inci- 

 dentally single beds of coal? Applying this observation, the 

 single beds of coal adverted to by Freiesleben as lying in the 

 rothliegende, in contradistinction to the continuous coal tract, 

 will be found to imply nothing more than the distinction now 

 taken. 



It follows from all that has been advanced, that to lay down 

 rigid rules with respect to the details of any particular series, 

 forming part of the structure of the earth, so that they should 

 be always applicable in the same manner in different countries, 

 is to expect nature to appear in shackles, which she is not in 

 the habit of wearing. The prevalence of a general order of 

 succession is indisputable ; but no less so is the variable state in 

 which correlative members of the same series are associated 

 together ; being found in one country distinct from, and in 

 another more or less frequently interstratified, with each other. 

 Of this truth, the members of the carboniferous series afford 

 many illustrative examples ; while the limestone forms in general 

 the great connecting link between the fundamental old red sand- 

 stone free from coal, on the one hand, and the coal measures 

 free from limestone, on the other. 



When on the eve of transmitting the preceding pages to the 

 press, the Annals of Philosophy for March, 1823, arrived, contain- 

 ing the continuation of Mr. Conybeare's interesting memoir. I 

 perceive no reason to alter any thing that I have written, profess- 

 ing, as I do, to have faithfully expounded the positions of 

 Freiesleben ; positions quite in accordance with analogous rela- 

 tions in Great Britain. It is for those geologists who advocate 

 doctrines in opposition to demonstrate their fallacy. Here, 

 however, I cannot avoid complaining that, while the authority 

 of Freiesleben is repeatedly appealed to in the course of this 

 controversy, his distinctions are not only frequently suffered 

 to pass without due attention, but his statements are tried by a 

 language in a great measure foreign to his own. The work of 

 Freiesleben should be judged not partially, but as a consistent 

 whole, taken all together. 



With great respect for my adversary, as well as for Prof. 

 Buckland, I cannot surrender my opinion of the accuracy of a 

 writer (without ample proof to the contrary), who, during a resi- 

 dence of seven years in a country, made its geological relations 

 an express object of his study ; comparing them also with those 

 of analogous tracts in other parts of Germany, both by his own 

 researches, and those of other naturalists. The opinion attri- 

 buted by my opponent to Von Humboldt (an illustrious name, 

 and carrying weight with it on any subject), will not, I appre- 

 hend, on clue examination, be found at all discordant with the 



New Series, vol. v. z 



