432 Correspondence — C. Davies Sherborn. 



rough coast have served only to reduce their dimensions, not to> 

 change their shapes ; their earlier journey in the Triassic sea had 

 given them the only form of w^hich their structure is capable — 

 a polished oblate spheroid " (Trans. Dev. Assoc, vol. i, pt. 3, p. 53). 



The question is absolutely crucial as to whether the Budleigh 

 pebbles are marine or fluviatile. 



Pengelly kept the Pebble-bed problem thoroughly in hand, and 

 noticed it in the follovring papers, viz. : Trans. Dev. Assoc, vol. i, 

 pt. 3, pp. 52-55; vol. ii, p. 37; vol. iv, pp. 197-200; vol. vi, 

 p. 650 ; and vol. xi, p. 340. Then, in the same Transactions 

 Mr. [Jssher had a "Chapter on the Budleigh Pebbles," in 1879, 

 vol. ix, p. 222. This paper is subsequent to the one cited by 

 Mr. Shrubsole. 



Since Pengelly's death geologists have nearly boxed the compass 

 as to the derivation of the pebbles. The only bearings remaining 

 unappropriated are those between N. by E. and S.E. by E. 



Mr. Shrubsole's observation noted above seems to be by far the 

 most important one made on the Pebble-bed during a generation. 

 If Pengelly is right the pebbles are of marine derivation; if 

 Mr. Shrubsole is right they are not marine, whatever else they maj'^ 

 be. But obviously the pebbles may be of marine origin without the 

 present bed having been a beach. Pengelly does not seem to have 

 contended for a beach, and both as a sailor in early life and having 

 spent a long life on the seaboard he was quite familiar with beaches. 



It may be noted that Pengelly's interest lay in the quartzites, 

 and it was of these he wrote as being oblate spheroids, and of 

 these alone. A. R. Hunt. 



PEIORITT OF OBSERVATIONS. 



Sir, — Mrs. Maria M. Ogilvie Gordon has published in the Trans. 

 Edinb. Geol. Soc, vol. viii, special part — which, by the way, bears 

 no date on the wrapper, but which was received at the British 

 Museum (Nat. Hist.) 13th August, 1903, — a paper on " The Geological 

 Structure of Monzoni and Fassa." I do not propose to notice this 

 paper, as I have not sufficient special knowledge of the district, but 

 merely call attention to a singular statement in the "Prefatory Note." 



Mrs. Gordon there says : " I was told that the manuscript of my 

 first paper on Monzoni would be kept in the archives of the Eoyal 

 Society [the paper was apparently refused publication because an 

 abstract had appeared elsewhere], the scientific priority of my 

 observations dating from its formal reading on June I'dth, 1902." 

 I beg to inform Mrs. Gordon that she has been entirely misled by 

 her informant. A MS. remains a MS. whether in the hands of the 

 Eoyal Society or in those of a private person, and the date of reading 

 of a paper in no way constitutes publication. Her MS. on Monzoni, 

 which the Eoyal Societjr has ' conveyed,' cannot be quoted, and is 

 perfectly useless so far as geology is concerned. Such confiscation 

 of manuscripts is a very serious injustice, not merely to authors, but 

 also to others working on the subject, and is indefensible. 



C. Davies Sherborn. 



