A. J. JukeS'Broivne — The Term ' Remera.'' 37 



subdivide his zones in that typical district, might not •' horizon ' or 

 * subzone ' answer his purpose equally well." ^ 



What Mr. Buckman had really felt the want of was unquestionably 

 a term to express a subdivision of a zone ; others also have felt that 

 want, and would have been grateful to Mr. Buckman for a handy 

 word applicable in a strictly stratigraphical sense. Instead of this, 

 however, he proposed a time-word, and further complicated the 

 matter by saying that " it is for a paleeontological purpose similar to 

 Moore's use of zone that I propose the term hemera," having just 

 above stated that Moore confined his use of the word zone " to the 

 exact horizon of a particular fossil" (op. oit., p. 481), From this 

 anyone might conclude that the term hemera was meant to indicate 

 both a palseontological horizon and the time of its formation, 

 especially as he does not use any other term for his stratigraphical 

 unit except the phrase " strata of the hemera." Moreover, in his 

 correlation table facing p. 514, he gives the vertical succession of 

 beds at different places, and numbers them according to a vertical 

 succession of hemera given in parallel columns : what is this but 

 a use of the term hemera as a stratigraphical unit? 



Again, on p. 519 there is a table entitled "Correlation of the 

 Zones and Hemerge," in which the latter are clearly shown to be 

 equivalent to parts of a zone. On p. 481 of the same paper he 

 accepts the word zone as " the stratum or strata characterized by an 

 assemblage of organic remains"; hence it is clear that he did not use 

 the word zone as a division of time, but of vertical thickness. Now 

 if hemera are parts of a zone they are stratigraphical units, not time- 

 units; what, then, becomes of Mr. Buckman's assertion that he 

 proposed the term hemera to denote the time occupied by the 

 formation of a zone ? 



Mr. Buckman says that "■ much of the trouble about zones and 

 hemerse has arisen from attempts to make the term ' zone ' a kind of 

 ' portmanteau word,' one into which several meanings were to be 

 packed," but his further proposals would only, in my opinion, make 

 things worse than they are now. By general consensus, as I have 

 shown elsewhere, a zone in its geological sense is a stratigraphical 

 term, and a subzone is a subdivision of a zone, so that we do not 

 want the word ' hemera ' in that sense, and I do not think that the 

 term subfaunizone would meet with acceptance. 



The term hemera may, however, be occasionally convenient to 

 signify the duration of a subzone, as age signifies the duration of 

 a stage, but if we want to avoid confusion we must not speak of the 

 hemera of a zone. For this another word should be coined, and if 

 one is really necessary I would suggest that the Latin word seculum 

 will furnish us with ' secule,' which finds an actual French equivalent 

 in siecle. 



I submit, therefore, that the awkward words 'biozone ' and 'fauni- 



zone ' are quite unnecessary, and certainly do nothing to dispel the 



ambiguity in the meaning and use of the term ' hemera.' I think 



that all requirements would be met by the use of the following 



1 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, vol. xlix, p. 522. 



