TABLE OF CONTENTS, 



XI 



PENNSYLVANIA. 



Views of IL D. Rogers in r(;gavd to tlio oldc;r rocks of this State, 4G7, 4G8 ; 

 romarkablo contradictions in his statements, 407, 468. LIuNT employed by 

 Lesley " to C))liate all the known, supposed, and suspected facts of American 

 Azoic Geology," 408; result of the same, 409. Hunt's views, in 1801 and 

 1871, of Pennsylvania geolog}^, 409, 470 ; here again most remarkable contra- 

 dictions, 470. LIUNT, in 1870, makes various statements contradictory of Les- 

 ley's opinions, 471. PiUME on the gneissic rocks of Lehigh County, 471 ; he 

 contradicts Hunt in reference to the age of certain iron ores, 472. C. E. Hall 

 ori the formations of Eastern Pennsylvania, 472. His results differ much from 

 those of Hunt, 473. Some remarks of l^i^sLiiiY in regard to the remarkable 

 diirerences between the views of J'kOGEiis and C. E. Hall, 473 ; a key to the 

 geology found, but "it will not turn in the lock," 474. 



VIUaiNIA. 



Fontaine's views of the geology ol' the vicinity of PalcoBy Falls, 474. Campbell 



on the samcs rocks, 475 ; his peculiar views iu regard to the Laurcntian and 

 Huronian, 475 ; criticism of these views, 470. 



NOKTH CAROLINA. 



Keru's report of 1S75, 470, 477 ; he assigns a large portion of the State to the 

 Laurentia.n and Huronian, 470, 477 ; Luadley, in 1875, considers a large part 

 of these rocks as being Silurian or newer, 478 ; Kerr admits doubt in regard to 

 the validity of his results, 478. No satisfactory reference of any of the rocks of 

 this State older than the Trias, 479. 



SOUTH CAROLINA. 



Lieber's work gives no clue to the age or order of succession of the older cr^^stalUne 

 rocks of this StaU;, 479 ; Hunt, however, from Lieber's description, considers 

 that he identiiies the Oreen and White Mountain series, 4?9 ; Hunt's inferences, 

 so far as can be made out, in contradiction with the sLatemouls of Licber, 480. 



GEORGIA. 



Littll: says that there is no Azoic in this State, 480 ; Hunt, on lithological grounds, 

 refers some of the rocks to the J\lontaIban, and some to the Taeonian, 480. 



TEXAS. 



Buckley's reports noticed and criticised, 480, 481 ; they are of no importance, 481. 



TENNESSEE. 



Safford on the older rocks of this State, which he sees no reason for referring to 

 the Laurcntian or Huronian, 481. P>rai)LEY holds that all the metamorphic 

 rocks of Tennessee are of Silurian age, 481. 



i-. . 



