144 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 
count for the formation of the Great Barrier Reef has been received as 
an elementary axiom in the "leading Australian handbooks,” is surely 
no evidence that the theory is correct, as Kent seems to imply. Nor is 
the separation of New Guinea from Australia in the middle tertiary a proof 
that the existing coral reefs of the Torres Strait began to grow at that 
period, nor does the fact that the marine areas of Australia have 
undergone "a vast movement of subsidence” (during the cretaceous 
period) have any bearing on the subsidence needed in our own epoch to 
account for the formation of reefs. Kent sums up his views as follows : 
“ The foregoing geological evidence [of subsidence in tertiary and creta- 
ceous times] being trustworthy and true, the construction of the Great 
Barrier Reef of Australia under conditions of subsidence, and in accord- 
ance with the original hypothesis of Mr. Darwin, is proved.” А state- 
ment from which we beg to differ dn toto, for the reasons set forth in 
this account of the Great Barrier Reef. 
CAMBRIDGE, September 1, 1897. 
NOTICE. 
Тнін Bulletin has been in type since last September. Owing 
to my absence in Fiji, its publication has been delayed to the 
present time. 
ALEXANDER AGASSIZ. 
Museum or Comparative ZOGLOGY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS., 
March 29, 1898. 
