142 Correspondence — /''. A. Bather. 



I do not myself know how many such names there are, but my canl- 

 iudex to them, incomplete though it unfortunately is, already extends 

 to a thickness of over two yards. From this simple fact certain 

 consequences follow. 



In the first place it is impossible for those of us wlio have to deal 

 with formations of every age and from all quarters of the globe to 

 carry in our heads the numerous names that have been proposed for 

 them. A card-index, such as that to which I have referred, is an 

 ahuost indispensable aid to one's work, and it is very necessary to 

 keep it up to date. But since few workers possess sucli a card-index, 

 there is an ever-increasing chance that tliose names which are yearly, 

 one might say dailv, proposed, will be already utilized in some other 

 sense. jS^ew names continue to appear in all languages and in publi- 

 cations of most diverse standing, including many that have an 

 extremely limited and local circulation. And just as there is no 

 restriction on the part of publications, neither does there seem to be 

 any on the part of the worker wlio thinks liimself entitled to propose 

 such new names. Not only are they proposed by recognized official 

 bodies, such as national surveys, but also by individual geologists of 

 every degree of competence. Thus, the chances that tlie names will 

 be unsuitable at the outset and overlooked afterwards are greatly 

 increased. 



To give one or two examples out of many — a British geologist, 

 familiar with the Bradford Clay and with the time-name ' Bradfordian ', 

 proposed by Desor in 1859, would not be likely to understand or to 

 sympathize with a modern American proposal to apply the same term 

 to some Lower Carboniferous beds in New York. Again, a French 

 or German geologist who has been taught that the term ' Stonesfiehl 

 slate' denotes certain ' schistes jurassiques inferieures d'Angleterre ', 

 runs the risk of being considerably misled when, in a recent memoir 

 on the geology of Jura and the surrounding districts, he comes upon 

 the term ' Stonefield schists ' applied to some metaraorphic rocks of 

 considerably greater age. 



Now, Sir, the object of this letter is not merely to indulge ray love 

 for a grumble, but to suggest to the geologists of Britain, at any rate, 

 two ways by which they might help themselves and others. 



A paper recently issued by an American colleague states that certain 

 formational names therein proposed have previously been submitted to 

 an official committee on Geological Nomenclature, and have received 

 its approval. Would it not be possible to have such a committee 

 in this country, nominated, perhaps, by the Geological Survey and 

 the Geological Society ? The decrees of a committee, however 

 authoritative, could have no binding force, but its existence might 

 act as a deterrent to the irresponsible and as an aid to the conscientious 

 worker. It would be the business of the committee to make itself 

 familiar with the names already proposed in this and other countries, 

 and to prevent such sources of confusion as the two mentioned above. 



The second suggestion is that every British geologist who proposes 

 a new name, whether it be in a memoir of the Geological Survey, in 

 the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, or in the Proceedings 

 of the Little Muddleborough Field Club, should be invited to send the 



