Correspondence—Dr. H. Hicks—Mr. A. R. Hunt. 159 
years ago the late Prof. James Nicol, of Aberdeen, in his “Geological 
Map of Scotland,” had indicated two limited areas of granite in that 
region, but the later maps of Murchison (1861) and Geikie (1874) 
contained no such indications. Ona recent visit to St. Catherine’s, 
opposite Inveraray; he had been struck by the enormous number of 
granite boulders, quite resembling those under notice, which lay 
strewn at that point along the eastern shore of Lochfyne, and it 
seemed impossible that these could have come across.the loch, all the 
evidences of glaciation being strongly southward. He had, there- 
fore, been convinced that the parent locality of these boulders was 
not far distant, probably in the upper part of Glenfyne. Though 
he had not as yet found leisure to make a personal exploration, he 
thought the conclusions he had arrived at were confirmed, indeed 
proved by the officers of the Geological Survey, who had lately 
described a granitic tract of about ten square miles on the eastern 
side of the northern part of Glenfyne, extending to, and slightly 
beyond, the water-shed between it and Glen Falloch. He further 
pointed out how from this locality, by Loch Eck and the Holy Loch, 
by Loch Long, and partly by Lochlomond, land-ice bearing the 
boulders in question could have reached the various points at which 
they had been found. At the close of the paper some discussion 
took place, the speakers generally agreeing with Mr. Bell in the 
conclusion at which he had arrived. 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
THE MAMMOTH AND THE GLACIAL DRIFT. 
Str,—I shall feel obliged if you will allow me to amend the 
sentence ‘Mammoth from the Lower Glacial Gravel at Finchley” 
in my letter in the last Number of the Grotocican Magazinu, by 
substituting Hlephas for Mammoth as being more correct, as the 
Specimens are not such as would enable us to identify the species. 
In the other cases cited the bones were undoubtedly those of the 
Mammoth. Henry Hicks. 
Henpon, Fed. 10, 1898. 
THE ROCKS OF SOUTH DEVON. 
Sir,—The issues raised by Professor Bonney’s recent letters on 
the South Devon Rocks are so important and multifarious, that to 
deal with them adequately would require a far longer article than 
the limits of the Magazine could admit. For. instance, without 
going further, I find in my copy of the Professor’s original Devon 
paper (Q.J.G.S. vol. xl.), no less than 118 Se points noted and 
numbered for comment and criticism. 
I hope on some future occasion to find both time and opportunity 
for a careful analysis and collation of several of Professor Bonney’s 
papers, with especial reference to his position with regard to the 
Devonshire schists.. In the meantime I venture to deprecate the 
