344 



A SYMPOSIUM 



Permian, I strenuously object to the subdivision of the Cretaceous 

 into two primary divisions. Certainly, so far as vertebrate 

 palaeontology is concerned, there is no good reason for the divi- 

 sion, and there are many opposed to it. I would rather prefer 

 Upper and Lower, for the divisions of the Cretaceous, but would 

 willingly see such terms as Platte and Comanche used. 



ii. I would prefer to have the Cenozoic divided into the 

 Eocene, Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene. I believe this is 

 the only logical system, unless, perhaps, the Oligocene is added. 

 Nevertheless, I see great difficulty in superseding the much used 

 Tertiary. Most assuredly there should be no distinction into 

 " Tertiary " and " Quaternary," and, if Tertiary is used, its limita- 

 tions must be widened to include the Pleistocene. This will be 

 equally hard to do, and for that reason I believe, upon the 

 whole, the best way is to drop the term Tertiary entirely. 



14. I am quite ready to use the plan of classification given 

 in my teaching and writings, if its use can become at all general. 

 Fixity and uniformity are all that I ask for here. 



13. The terms and divisions that I think ought to be 

 adopted, so far as I have grounds to base my opinions upon, are 

 as follows : 



Cenozoic, 



Mesozoic, 



Palseozic, - 



Pleistocene, 



Pliocene, 



Miocene, 



Eocene, 



Cretaceous, 



Jurassic. 



Triassic. 



Carboniferous, 



Devonian, 

 Silurian, 

 Ordovician, 

 Cambrian. 



Upper. 

 Lower. 



( Permit 

 \ Coal TV 



lan. 



Measures. 

 Mississippian. 



Eozoic or Proterozoic, 

 Azoic. 



I have done very little field or laboratory work upon the divi- 



