Dr. Henry Hicks — The Age of the Morte Slates. 107 



Looe, Cornwall, which are classed as of Lower Devonian age. 

 So far, therefore, as its stratigraphical position is concerned, it 

 would not be at all surprising if we were to find in so great 

 a thickness of beds as is included under the term Morte Slates, 

 a zone characterized by this fossil. In fact, in the second part of my 

 paper I shall be able to show that Lower Devonian fossils do actually 

 occur in the "Morte Slates" of West Somerset, and that they must 

 be as nearly as possible on the horizon of the Looe Beds. Still, 

 the fossils with which we have now to deal must be ti"eated by 

 themselves, and a somewhat careful analysis of the points referred 

 to by Dr. Gregory will be necessary. As preparatory to this 

 I would ask those who are interested in this question to have open 

 before them page 267 of my paper in the Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, 

 as the figure given there of S. lirata is a reproduction from 

 a photograph, and hence cannot deceive anyone, and pi. xxii, fig. 6, 

 " Silurian System "; next pi. xx of Davidson's Monograph of Silurian 

 Brachiopoda ; and then pi. xvii of his Monograph of Devonian 

 Brachiopoda, and also the original figure of H. proximiis in the 

 " Geology of New York," by Lardner Vanuxem, part iii, 1842, p. 124. 



I will take the objections in the order given by Dr. Gregory. 

 He says (Geol. Ma.g., p. 61) : — "Dr. Hicks lays most stress on the 

 specimens determined as Stricklandinia lirata, Sow., of which he has 

 figured four examples, viz., fig. 3, p. 267 ; and pi. x, figs. 6, 7, and 8. 

 Of the four specimens, that shown on fig. 8 may be left out of 

 account, as it is a smaller and less satisfactory specimen of the form 

 shown in fig. 6, with which it fully agrees ; while that drawn on 

 pi. X, fig. 7 has lost the upper part of the shell, so that its family 

 position is indeterminable ; the dotted line on the plate which 

 suggests the position of the hinge-line and beak is hypothetical." 



in these remarks not a word is said about the characteristic 

 ribbing, which anyone well acquainted with S. lirata would at once 

 i-ecognize as so different from that in H. proximus. However, as 

 Dr. Gregory has not recognized this and some other points, I need 

 only touch on those which have caught his eye. 



He goes on to say that " the two remaining specimens show three 

 characters. . ." Why call a cast and an impression of the same 

 specimen two specimens ? Dr. Gregory is not dependent on the 

 published figures, but says that he examined them with care after 

 the meeting ; therefore there is no excuse for his not having 

 recognized that it was but one fossil. However, this error 

 evidently helped to increase his subsequent mistakes, for as fig. 6 is 

 a much broken fragment, its normal size does not become apparent 

 from the figure, and it was mainly because of this that I had the 

 impression fig. 3 given also. We have, therefore, only to deal with 

 one fossil, and fig. 6, instead of being only three inches, should be 

 outlined to over four inches in length. Its width also should be 

 considerably increased, and I am satisfied that, in the normal con- 

 dition of the fossil, from comparison with other specimens found, it 

 would be still wider than is shown in the impression, as, owing to 

 the strong cleavage-line which exposed the fossil, a portion was left 



