TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION C. 475 
Section C.—GEOLOGY. 
PRESIDENT OF THE SEctron—Professor W. C. Wittiamson, LL.D., F.R.S. 
THURSDA y, SEPTEMBER 20. 
The Prestpent delivered the following Address :— 
Muc# of the second decade of my life was spent in the practical pursuit of 
geology in the field, and throughout most of that period I enjoyed almost daily 
intercourse with William Smith, the father of English Geology ; but in later years 
circumstances restricted my studies to the Paleontological side of the science. 
Hence I was anxious that the Council of the British Association should place in 
this chair some one more familiar than myself with the later developments of 
geographical geology. But my friend, Professor Bonney, failing to recognise the 
force of my objections, intimated to me that I might render some service to the 
Association by putting before you a sketch of the present state of our Inowledge 
of the vegetation of the Carboniferous Age. 
This being a subject respecting which I have formed some definite opinions I 
am about to act upon the suggestion. To some this may savour of ‘shop-talk.’ 
But such is often the only talk which a man can indulge in intelligently, and to 
close his mouth on his special themes may compel him either to talk nonsense, or 
to be silent. 
Whilst undertaking this task I am alive to the difficulties which surround it ; 
especially those arising from the wide differences of opinion amongst palzo- 
botanists on some fundamental points. On some of the most important of these 
there is a substantial agreement between the English and German paleontologists. 
The dissentients are chiefly, though not exclusively, to be found amongst those of 
France who haye, in my humble opinion, been unduly influenced by what is in- 
itself a noble motive—viz. a strong reverence for the views of their illustrious 
teacher, the late Adolphe Brongniart. Such a tendency speaks well for their 
hearts, though it may, in these days of rapid scientific progress, seriously mislead 
their heads. I shall, however, endeavour to put before you faithfully the views 
entertained by my distinguished French friends M. Renault, M. Grand-Eury, and 
the Marquis of Saporta, giving, at the same time, what I deem to be good reasons 
for not agreeing with them. I believe that many of our disagreements arise 
from geological differences between the French Carboniferous strata and those of 
our own islands. There are some important types of Carboniferous plants that 
appear to be much better represented amongst us than in France. Hence we 
haye, I believe, more abundant material than the French paleontologists possess 
for arriving at sound conclusions respecting these plants. We have rich mines, 
supplying specimens in which the ihternal organisation is preserved, in Eastern 
Lancashire and Western Yorkshire, Arran, Burntisland, and other scattered 
localities. France has equally rich localities at Autun and St. Etienne. But 
some important difference exists between these localities. The French objects are 
preserved in an impracticable siliceous matrix, extremely troublesome to work, 
except in specimens of small size, Ours, on the other hand, are chiefly embedded 
in a calcareous material which, whilst it preserves the objects in an exquisite 
manner, does not prevent our dissecting examples of considerable magnitude. But, 
