i8 



6. Linnarsson. 



It was during the first decade of his scientific activity that 

 Lapworth's friendship with Linnarsson, the great Swedish 

 palaeontologist, was formed, though I believe the two men never 

 actually met. They, however, corresponded frequently and 

 exchanged publications. Each seems to have told the other 

 very frankly the work that he was doing and the results he was 

 obtaining. As a consequence each one encouraged and aided the 

 other ; sequences worked out in Britain were tested in Sweden, 

 the zonal work in the two countries proceeded simultaneously, 

 and the case for graptolitic zoning grew ever stronger. 



On two occasions Lapworth took the opportunity of bringing 

 Linnarsson's work on the older Palaeozoic rocks before English 

 readers in the pages of the Geological Magazine, and he published 

 at the same time a correlation table of the British equivalents 

 of the Scandinavian subdivisions. Lapworth's admiration for 

 Linnarsson was unbounded, and he has given very fine expression 

 to it in his notices of Linnarsson's work and in the beautiful tribute 

 on his untimely death in 1882.* 



B. THE ORDOVICIAN SYSTEM. 



In 1879 Lapworth broke new ground, and rendered a very 

 important service to the advance of geological science. His very 

 extensive acquaintance with the literature of older Palaeozoic 

 geology, coupled with his own work on the rocks, had convinced 

 him of the vital importance of the occurrence of three distinct and 

 separate faunas in these rocks. Owing to misunderstandings, and 

 to mistakes both stratigraphical and palaeontological, this great 

 issue was in danger of becoming obscured. It did not receive due 

 recognition in the current nomenclature, the confusion of which 

 was a terror to students and an impediment to scientific work and 

 discussion (17). 



Very tactfully and modestly, but very justly, he reviewed 

 the history of the great Cambro-Silurian controversy, awarding 

 to each disputant just as much credit as was due to him, in the 

 words : f" We shall best promote the interest of the man whose 

 memory we venerate by modestly claiming for him as much, and 

 no more, than truth and geological convenience will allow." Then 

 he suggested that we should J" claim the right of fully recognising 

 the systematic equality of the three lower Palaeozoic Faunas, by 

 regarding the three successive rock-groups which contain them as 

 individually entitled to the rank and denomination of a complete 

 system." Finally, he proposed that if the lowest division of these 



* 20, 24, 27. 

 t 17. P- I2 - + I 7> P 8 - 



