TABLE OF COXTEXTS. V 



rocks into six groups, and refers to Devonian, Silurian, Lanrcntian, and llii- 

 rouian, 360-302. Bailey, Mattiikw, and Hautt, in 1805, give their views 

 of the age of the rocks of Southern New Brunswick, 362, 303. Bailky and 

 Matthew again, in the Report for 1870-71, express their o[>inions of the 

 sequence of these rocks, 364 ; numerous changes made, to conform with the 

 views of Hunt based on lithological considerations, 36-t ; confusion thus intro- 

 duced, 364-366 ; faults and ovei-turns imagined in order to sustain these new 

 views, 367 ; an easy explanation of the dilCculties, 367. Further confusion and 

 shifting of the various groups from jilace to place by Matthkw and Bailky, in 

 the Beports for 1876-77 and 1876-78. Ells, in the Report for 1670-78, 

 describes rocks as Laurentian and Devonian, which in 1865 were called Devo- 

 nian, and in 1871 Huronian. Further changes, and the St. John group placed 

 in the Cambrian, in the Report of 1878-79, by Matthew, Bailey, and Ells, 

 368. Bailey's view of New Brunswick geology, in 1880, 308, 369. Hunt, in 

 1878, presents his views of New Brunswick geology, mingling his own ideas with 

 those of Bailey and Matthew, and disregarding the sequence of time in wliich 

 these were presented, 371 ; resulting confusion, 371 ; impossibility of har- 

 monizing Hunt's views, as expressed in 1870, with his subsequent explanation 

 of them, 372 ; a tabular statement of Hunt's views as expressed by him in 1S70, 

 and as that expression was explained by him afterwards, 372 ; remarks on the 

 value of the work thus done, 372. Matthew and Bailey misrepresented by 

 Hunt in 1S79, 373. The rocks of Southern New Brunswick declared by Hunt, 

 in 1875, to be Huronian and Montalban, 373. A''arious views of the New 

 Brunswick geologists, so far as the same can be deciphered, presented in tabular 

 form, 374. 



NOVA SCOTIA. 



Hind, in 1870, indicates the presence of Huronian and Laurentian in Nova Scotia, 

 374, 375 ; J. "W. Dawson regards the Laurentian gneiss of Hind as being 

 intrusive granite, 375 ; Selavyx differs from Dawson, 375 ; Selwyn's views 

 criticised, 375 ; Hunt considers the Huronian of Hind to be Montalban, 376 ; 

 Honeyjian's views, which seem to be valueless, and are objected to by J. W. 

 Dawson, 376 ; Haktley's opinions of rocks of Cape Breton, and some sugges- 

 tions in regard to them, 376 ; Robb's examination of the same region, in the 

 Reports for 1873-74 and 1874-75, 376; Selwyn's commentaries on Robb's 

 work, 377 ; great change in Selwyn's views since 1871, 377. Further state- 

 ments by J. W. Dawson, in 1878, 377. The condition of the question summed 

 up, 378. 



NEWFOUNDLAND. 



Reconnaissance by Jukes, in 1839-40, 378. Murray, in the Report for 1864, 

 recognizes the Laurentian, and gives a table of the formation occurring in New- 

 foundland, 379. In the Report for 1868, Murray introduces an Intermediate 

 system, supposed to be the ecpiivalent of the Cambrian and Huronian, 379 ; 

 supposed fossils in this series, 379 ; these rejected by the paleontologist of the 

 Survey, 379 ; fiu-ther discoveries of supposed fossils in these rocks, 380 ; ilun- 

 KAY', in the Report for 1873, presents reasons for dividing the Laurentian into 

 two groups, 380 ; the real state of the case, 380. 



