Correspondence — Dr. Callaway. 479 



the knowledge already gained. Out of doors the student should attempt the mapping 

 of a district by himself. It will be well, if there is any choice in the matter, to 

 select one in which the physical features are strongly marked. 



This sketchy outline must serve to indicate the notions that have grown up in my 

 mind on the subject now before us, and the methods I have been led to adopt in the 

 teaching of geology. 1 trust that they may be suggestive, and may call forth that 

 kindly and genial criticism with which the brotherhood of the hammer are wont to 

 welcome attempts, however feeble, to strengthen the corner-stones and widen the 

 domain of the science we love so well, and to enlarge the number of its votaries. 



COIRIRIESIPOILSriDIEIENrCIE]- 



PRIORITY OF NOMENCLATURE. 

 Sir, — May I ask your opinion on a question of nomenclature ? 

 About 15 years ago 1 discovered in Shropshire the formation which 

 Phillips had previously found in the Malvern Hills, and had called 

 the Hollyhush Sandstone. Quite recently, Prof. Lapworth, writing 

 in this Magazine, referred to this rock as the " Comley Sandstone/' 

 taking the name from the locality where my typical section is seen, 

 and Prof. Blake has adopted the new nomenclature. Is this change 

 of name in accordance with usage ? We call the " Wenlock Lime- 

 stone " by that name, whether it occurs in Shropshire or the Malvern 

 Hills, and why should we not call the " Hollybush Sandstone " by 

 Phillips' name, whether it is found in the Malvern Hills or in 

 Shropshire ? Ch. Callaway. 



Wellington, Shropshire, August 22>/d, 1890. 



THE ELEVATION OF THE "WEALD. 

 Sir, — In the rapid increase of geological literature, some of our 

 early papers may easily be overlooked, and facts unwittingly repeated 

 as novel which had already been noticed ; but it may not often 

 happen that the first observer is made the disciple of the second. 

 I have no objection to legitimate criticism ; but there is an objection 

 to this obliteration of landmarks, otherwise I should not now care 

 to address you. In Dr. Irving's note " On the Elevation of the 

 Weald," in this month's number of your Magazine, he draws atten- 

 tion to the fact that in 1883 he pointed out that there was evidence 

 of the encroachment of the sea upon the Upper Chalk in Eocene 

 times, and that this conclusion is accepted by Professor Prestwicli. 

 This might lead the reader to suppose that I had overlooked this 

 point, and that my notice of it in my paper "On the Westleton Beds" 

 (1889), to which he refers, was in consequence of his 1883 paper. 

 Had that been the case, I should not have failed to acknowledge, 

 and that most willingly, my authority for so leading a fact. If, 

 however, Dr. Irving will kindly refer to my paper " On the Thanet 

 Sands" in Q.J.G.S. for 1852, pp. 256-260, 1 or to "The Ground 

 Beneath Us," pp. 70-79, 1847, he will find the question discussed 

 at some length, and facts and sections given to show that the dome 

 of the Weald was raised after Cretaceous times, and that the Chalk 



1 Mr. Irving will find this reference in the paper which is the cause of his remarks. 



