1847.] JVo Coal in the Jfeiv York Rocks. 125 



if it was an easy process, hybrids would be common over the 

 fields. Wheat and rye are nearly related species; but they are 

 grown together often by the farmer, and yet both preserved dis- 

 tinct — not a hybrid of them aj)pears. But chess has generic 

 characters, which separate it far from those of wheat. Wonder- 

 ful indeed would be the modification of the one into the other. 

 A hybrid of it must be, not chess, but some yet unknown ve- 

 getable. 



Fields of wheat sometimes abound in cockle, hychms githago, 

 whose seeds are so ruinous to good flour. Why has not this 

 plant been considered some modified wheat? Because it is so 

 different? What is the limit to differences, when wheat and 

 chess may be said to have the same origin? 



The correct knowledge of chess leads directly to safe agricul- 

 tural practice. The remedy is as palpable as the difficulty. Let 

 the soil be freed from the seeds of chess. 



NO COAL IN THE NEW YORK ROCKS. 



An impression was common, and seems to have pervaded com- 

 munity at one time, that coal would be found in the New York 

 rocks. The origin of this expectation ])robably arose from a mis- 

 take in regard to the character of a single member of the New 

 York series of rocks. Thus, the Medina sandstone was regarded 

 as a rock equivalent to, or identical with, the new red sandstone 

 of Europe; a rock which is superior to the coal formation, and 

 beneath which it is known to exist. Two facts seemed to have 

 led to this error; first, the great similarity of the Medina sand- 

 stone to the new red sandstone of Europe in its lithological cha- 

 racters: second, the existence of salt or brine springs in each. 

 These two facts were certainly very strong arguments in favor of 

 the assumption that coal would be found in this state. Subse- 

 quent examination however, has fully proved the falsity of this 

 assumption; for it is now established on the most substantial 

 basis, that the Medina sandstone is older, not only than the new 

 red sandstone of Europe, but far below and older than the old red 

 sandstone also. 



Two inferences may be safely drawn from the above error; 1. 

 That lithological characters are insufficient of themselves to de- 

 termine the age of any rock. 2. That the mineral contents, even 

 when taken in conjunction with those characters, are also insuf- 

 ficient and cannot form a basis upon which the age of a rock can 

 be determined. 



