320 JReviews — A. OuilHer's Geology of the Sarfhe. 



about his task ; but ere tbe consummation is reached (p. 670), 

 ere those innumerable volumes have been consulted and annotated, 

 the work seems to have told its tale. At the same time we hope 

 that the author may survive to give us a third edition in due course. 



W. H. H. 



II. — Geologie du Department de la. Sarthe. Par Albert 

 GuiLLiEE. 4to pp. xii. and 430, with numerous Woodcuts. 

 Published at Le Mans and Paris, 1886. Price 16 francs. 



THIS monograph is published by the local authorities of the 

 Department, and is intended as an explanation of the Geological 

 Map of the Department, which is founded on the work of M. Triger, 

 An Agricultural Map is also published by the same authority, and 

 notes on the soils produced by the various rocks are given in this 

 volume. 



All this is very creditable to the local government, and one 

 wonders if we shall ever have a similar county government in 

 England, viz. councils by which local county affairs might be 

 managed and from which scientific knowledge might be disseminated. 

 During the last few years the Geological Survey has issued many 

 descriptive memoirs, at reasonable prices, which contain much useful 

 information, but neither the maps nor the explanations of the Survey 

 are so well known throughout the country as they ought to be, 

 because no steps are taken to make people in the country aware of 

 their existence. 



The Department of the Sarthe has a varied geological structure, 

 for it possesses representatives of the following systems ; — 



9. Quaternary. 5. Carboniferous. 



8. Eocene and Miocene. 4. Lower Devonian. 



7. Upper Cretaceous. 3. Upper Silurian. 



6. Jurassic. 2. Lower Silurian. 



1. Cambrian (or Archaean). 



Full descriptions are given of the rocks and their stratgraphical 

 relations, with lists of the fossils found in them. There are also 

 diagrammatic sections, but we wish that the vertical scale of these 

 had not been so greatly exaggerated ; this is a fault which the French 

 are only slowly learning to correct. 



In his first chapter M. Guillier refers to the Murchison and 

 Sedgwick controversy, but he has hardly grasped the details of the 

 Cambrian question, and seems to think that Murchison had inde- 

 pendently given the name of Cambrian to rocks that were older than 

 his Lower Silurian. He therefore applies the term Cambrian to 

 rocks which are older than Barrande's Primordial Silurian ; but these 

 in modern nomenclature are the Pre-Cambrian or Archgean rocks. 

 The strata actually referred to are the Phyllades de St. Lo and the 

 Ardoises de Parennes, and it so happens that Prof. Hebert and Dr. 

 Ch. Barrels are now at variance on the very question of whether 

 these Phyllades should be referred to the Archaean or to the Cambrian. 

 M. Guillier's view is that recently advocated by Prof. Hebert, though 

 it would not appear so from his nomenclature. 



