352 P. W. Stuart- Blenteath — On the Pyrenees. 



rocks, while M. Lacroix admits the same in the Compte Bendu of 

 the Congress. In the Bulletin Soc. Geol. of 1896 M. Carez published 

 elaborate maps and sections representing the said Cretaceous as 

 Cambrian and Silurian, in explicit contradiction of all previous 

 work on the subject. As at Capvern, his sole reason was the theory 

 that granite cannot penetrate the Cretaceous. To my objection that 

 the slates of Lourdes, thus figured as Silurian, contain abundant 

 Ammonites Deshayesi and three closely allied species which commonly 

 accompany that Ammonite, he replied by assuming inexcusable 

 blunders of surveying, and by stating in the name of M. Douville that 

 my determination of the A. Deshayesi was a palseontological blunder 

 (Bull. Soc. Geol., 1897, p. 463). In the Livret Guide he states that 

 the Ammonites Deshayesi was determined by M. Douville, while 

 " other authors " quoted " a whole series of distinct species." He 

 unfortunately only recognized this Ammonite in a single quarry 

 where I had thrown aside about two hundred specimens, amongst 

 which I had found the three species or varieties which enabled me 

 to confirm my determination of the Ammonites Deshayesi, in spite 

 of its close resemblance to unnamed species of the Lias slates of 

 La Spezia. It is unfortunate that the interests of M. Carez should 

 completely mislead the Congress regarding everything concerned 

 in a case strictly analogous to that of Capvern, where he again 

 repeats his method of reforming the facts of observation. 



Together with the representation of the Aptien as Middle Silurian 

 and the Flysch as Cambrian, M. Carez presented in 1896 a repro- 

 duction of the panoramic view of M. Jacquot, represented as a section 

 of the Biarritz coast. As at Capvern, he assumes the rocks beside 

 the ophite to be Lias. I have repeatedly proved, by both maps and 

 fossils, that these rocks are the base of the Eocene, normally over- 

 lying the Danien along at least 150 kilometres. My observations 

 were confirmed in great detail by the Staff Officer in charge of the 

 topographical mapping of the district, in Bull. Soc. Geol. of 1893, 

 and the points left obscure by him have since been completed. 

 M, Carez ignores the whole of this work. He represents quartz 

 crystals in the Eocene as dipyre of the Lias, and reproduces a fault 

 which Jacquot logically assumed in the belief that the coast between 

 Fontarabia and St. Sebastian is a reappearance of the Cretaceous 

 outside the Danien. I proved this coast ridge to be Eocene by 

 a map in the Comptes Bendus Ac. Sc. in 1894, and by Nummulites 

 described in Bull. Soc. Geol. of the same year. It is unfortunate that 

 M. Carez does not understand the ordinary proof of a fault, but 

 always introduces faults as imaginary lines which, if traced on 

 a map, justify his reproducing that map as an original production 

 by the author of the fault. His arrangement of the rocks at 

 Biarritz has naturally led to one of those monstrous paradoxes of 

 stratigraphy which have become a speciality in the hands of M. Marcel 

 Bertrand. I will only here remark that M. Bergeron figures beneath 

 the Danien the same supposed Trias which M. Carez figures as 

 above it, and whose position above the Danien is explained elaborately 

 by MM. Bertrand and Michel-Levy. Numerous borings, to which 



