Q'iic'- t lie re is no reason to nn.ppoce that he wou2d not have ap- 

 nlied the same statement to the Greater Antilles^s if thej? had 

 been miCLer discussion. A :;ear later Dall, (l), v.ho iu quoted 



(l), Gu-.ipi , ?L. J. L., an;l Dall, ./. K., Proo. U. S. iCat. I.Iu:-. . . 

 vol. 19, vn. 7n^-'^C4, 1^96. 



hv American excl egorj/, brief- 



ly asserted that all of tL., .,u-co,lled Hiocene of the /uitilleGn 

 region, as well aa the deposits of Bordeaux, should be consider- 

 ed 01i£-ocene and from that tine dates the current opinion that 

 the I-'iocene ":s.c a period of high uplift ' "^ '"he iintillean s,rea. 

 At thi;:,' point i;. involve^ the questi of ther.e fro- 



quentlj- -jiientioned be-'s in southvre ,e. By the "so- 



called Ilioceneof Bordeaujc and Dax" Dall referrer^ to the Aqui- 

 tanian, r;hiGh at that t i .e v Vioet generally considered upper- 



most •"'lif'ocene : Since the^i, however, m.'^ny o . ropean strat- 



igraphers '-ave c or. s id- red the A-"!''- :i " ': I.liocene and 



that opinion is the prevailin,-; one. e ?/ho contend that the 



Acjuitanian is Hiocene consider all of our "achicola f.:^ 



Iov:er Iliocene; Dossnar^a ("), for example, severely criticises 



f2). Oossmami, .., A.ev. 3rit. de '?aleozool., Id5, no. 

 119-121. 



