Notes and Comments. 323 
most effective utilisation as fuel); and to the extraction of by- 
products. In the course of the discussion, Professor Kendall, 
of the University of Leeds, said that as a geologist he drew a 
distinction between coal and coal seams. He deprecated the 
method of the chemist in taking samples for analysis. The 
chemist simply contented himself by taking a portion and 
assuming it was a fair sample of the bulk. That, in his view, 
was not sufficient, because coal, even in the same seam, varied 
from top to bottom. Broadly speaking they found coal in two 
varieties—in bright lustrous layers and in dull charcoal layers. 
These layers were probably of different botanical constituents 
but it was not so much a difference in plants perhaps as the 
fact that the plants were probably submitted to different 
processes in the course of their accumulation. Chemical analysis 
of these two types of coal had produced very different results. 
BRIGHT AND DULL COAL. 
It was assumed that the bright layers consisted of the bark 
of trees, and that the dull layers were composed of twigs, smaller 
branches, leaves, and so on. When examined chemically it 
was very material. Ash was an important factor in connection 
with the investigation of coal values. He particularly em- 
phasised this, as insufficient discrimination had been paid 
to the method of sampling. He quoted a number of analytical 
results which had been obtained by his friends, from which he 
found that the brighter layers of coal gave a very low per- 
centage of ash, and the dull a much higher percentage. The 
question then arose as to the composition of the ash. Professor 
Kendall referred to the experiments conducted by Dr. Garrett 
and Mr. Burton in connection with the origin of this extraneous 
matter, as to whether it was introduced by percolation. He 
urged the need of correlation between chemist and geologist 
in arriving at the true nature of coal. These investigations 
should be carried through a particular seam. 
THE HANDBOOK. 
‘The Official Handbook to Newcastle and District’ was 
well written and well illustrated, being prepared under the 
editorship of Messrs. G. B. Richardson and W. W. Tomlins6n. 
It contains Igo pages. We regret, however, that the authorities 
did not consider it worthy of a more permanent cover than one 
of flimsy paper. The Naturalist, also, was very disappointed 
to find not a single paper on the geology, botany or zoology 
of the area. This seems all the more remarkable when it is 
remembered that the District is well represented in workers 
in various branches of natural science. The omission seems all 
the more unaccountable, for we read in the Preface, ‘in 
the articles describing industries the latest developments have 
necessarily been suppressed.’ 
1916 Oct. 1. 
