REVIEWS 99 
loss of crushing strength is greater in rocks in which the porosity is 
low and the size of the pores small, than in rocks in which the pore 
space is high and the pores large. This conclusion is diametrically 
opposed to that which is popularly current. The explanation of this 
unexpected result is that in the case of rocks where the pores are large 
the included water is given off with sufficient rapidity to avoid the 
evils of freezing, while in the case of close-textured rocks which are 
saturated when frozen, the water does not escape, and the injury to 
the rock is greater. This is a point of great practical value, as well as 
of theoretical interest. The results of the experiments are given in 
detail in tabulated form. Part II also contains a set of tables in which 
are given the results of the various other physical tests to which the 
building stones of Wisconsin have been subjected. 
Part III is an appendix in which composition, kinds of stone, and 
rock structures are discussed. 
The form of the report is a convenient one, the binding is neat 
and attractive, the illustrations are numerous and for the most part 
well chosen. A carefully prepared map of the state is folded in the 
text. An attractive feature is the representation of the stones in their 
natural colors. No verbal description could arrest the attention so 
effectually or give the reader so vivid an idea of the beauty of the stone, 
as these artistic plates. If the printer is not at fault, however, one 
might wonder why the beautifully colored granite on Plate XII should 
be called gray. 
The person who can write a perfect report on building stones has 
not yet attempted it. In Dr. Buckley’s report there are some points 
which some of his readers might wish to change. Some are matters 
of personal taste and all are of somewhat minor importance compared 
with the much valuable matter forming the body of the report. 
Petrographers may not all agree entirely with the distinction between 
gabbro and diabase (p. 447). Some of the readers may not agree with 
the relative importance placed upon the different cements in sand- 
stone given on p. 450, or with the conclusions about the use of quartzite 
on p. 455. All those who might agree with the author that “the joints 
in igneous rocks are more numerous than in the sedimentary” might 
not agree with him that it is ‘‘owing to the greater length of time 
through which they have been subject to dynamic action” (p. 459). 
The report represents a vast amount of careful and conscientious 
work on the part of Dr. Buckley and will no doubt prove a valuable 
