Correspondence — Alfred Harker — F. A. Bather. 191 



is more purely academic — will realize that absolute assurance as to 

 facts in field evidence is essential. Less than absolute assurance may 

 be interesting but is economically useless. 



Dr. Harker and I, from our respective experiences in various parts 

 of the world, obviously take different points of view, and therefore 

 I suppose must agree to differ upon this problem of the Sgurr of Eigg. 



E. H. Cunningham-Craig. 

 The Dutch House, Beaconsfield. 

 March 1, 1920. 



[The foregoing letter was submitted to Dr. Harker in MS. ; his 

 reply is printed below. — Ed. Geol. Mag.] 



Sir, — I am sorry if the tone of my former note on this subject 

 was unsuitable. It is no doubt a Don's failing to dislike being 

 patronized, even by an old student. 



I should not trouble you again were it not that Mr. Cunningham- 

 Craig persists in representing that I stand for " theory " while he 

 is the champion of " field evidence ". I must point out once more 

 that my theory was the same as his until I came to survey the 

 ground, when the field evidence compelled me to a different inter- 

 pretation. There was no question of " microscopic petrology " 

 until Mr. Craig introduced it, when he claimed to decide that the 

 granite fragments in the Eigg agglomerate are of a Tertiary, not 

 a Palaeozoic type. It seems that, despite his compliments, he will 

 not allow me the same privilege in respect of the granite fragments 

 in Skye and elsewhere. His experience in many parts of the world 

 may be, like Sam Weller's knowledge of London, extensive and 

 peculiar, but does not seem to have much bearing upon this specific 

 point. 



Alfred Harker. 



PAL^ONTOLOGICAL ABSTKACTS. 



Sir, — Probably most of your readers are by this time aware that 

 the Societe Geologique de Belgique has undertaken to publish a 

 " Review of Geology and Connected Sciences ", consisting of 

 summaries of recent papers written, so far as possible, by the authors 

 themselves. Further information may be obtained from the 

 Secretary to the Review, Laboratoire de Geologie, Universite 

 de Liege. 



The object of this letter is to inform British Palaeontologists 

 that the new Review, instead of competing with La Revue critique 

 de Paleozoologie, which M. Cossmann has been bravely conducting 

 for over twenty years, will take it into collaboration, leaving the 

 direction in the hands of M. Cossmann. All writers on Palaeozoology 

 in this country are therefore asked to be good enough to send 

 M. Maurice Cossmann, 110 Faubourg Poissoniere, Paris, Xe., 

 separate copies of their papers, or if that be impossible, at least the 

 title and bibliographic details of each publication. 



F. A. Bather. 



