92 ~ Correspondence—Mr. J. J. Harris Teall. 
The special interest of Mr. Seebohm’s observation lies in the 
fact of the very great elevation, namely, 500 feet, at which he 
procured the specimens I have recorded, all of which are now 
existing and common in the neighbouring seas. H. W. Frrnpxy. 
THE PENNINE CHAIN. 
Sir,—Will you allow me to say a word on the subject of the 
geological age of the Pennine Chain? Some five or six years ago I 
became aware of the fact that the Coal-measures in the neighbour- 
hood of Nottingham have a fairly persistent north and south strike 
beneath the Permian rocks, and that some of the north and south 
faults in the Coal-measures do not affect the overlying rocks, at any 
rate to anything like the same extent. I immediately saw that 
these facts were sufficient to prove that the Carboniferous rocks had 
been subjected to a north and south series of disturbances before 
Permian times; and I concluded that since the Pennine axis follows 
the same direction it probably belongs to the same period. I mention 
this not for the purpose of claiming priority over my friend Mr. 
Wilson in this matter, but merely for the purpose of justifying my 
interference in the present discussion. 
Now, Sir, I contend that the evidence of pre-Permian flexuring 
and faulting along north and south lines in this neighbourhood is 
quite sufficient to settle the question as to the date of the origin of 
the first movements in this direction. 
I think both Mr. Wilson and Prof. Hull, in discussing this 
question, are a little hampered by the notion of anticlinal axes 
forming barriers. Thus, the greater portion of Prof. Hull’s letter 
(Grou. Mac. Vol. VI. p. 573) is devoted to a consideration of the 
question of the similarity of deposits on opposite sides of the 
Pennine Chain, and this of course is strictly relevant to the dis- 
cussion as raised by Mr. Wilson (Gnoz. Mae. Vol. VI. p. 500). It 
does not, however, affect the question of the date of the north and 
south movements, which is really the important question at issue. 
On this question, all the direct evidence I know of points to the 
conclusion that these disturbances originated during the immense 
interval of time which elapsed between the close of the Carboniferous 
period and the commencement of that portion of the Permian period 
which is represented by deposits forming the eastern boundary of 
the exposed portion of the Nottingham and Yorkshire Coal-basin. 
I have read Prof. Hull’s paper on this question, Q.J.G.S. vol. 
XXiv. p. 832, and, like Mr. Wilson, I fail to see that the evidence 
there adduced, in favour of the Post-Permian and Pre-Triassic date 
of the origin of these north and south disturbances, is of much value, 
even when standing by itself, and I consider that it is completely 
destroyed by the fact, mentioned above, that the Coal-measures strike 
north and south beneath the Permian rocks for some distance north 
of Nottingham. Prof. Hull seems to think that the physical dis-. 
cordance here referred to is slight, and supposes it to be due “to 
a sort of sympathetic movement which took place during the 
progress of the more powerful east and west flexuring at the close 
