44 Correspondence — Mr. Garwood — Mr. Springer. 



an " accessory " mineral, and deduct the soda required for its 

 formation, we still have an excess of soda over potash in the 

 rock ; the monoclinic felspar present at Scarrupata, Ischia, is, no 

 doubt, as is frequently the case, a soda-orthoclase. Such an analysis 

 must not be regarded as typical of simple trachytes, but of the 

 sodalite-trachytes, which, indeed, approach the phonolites. Jndo;ed 

 by the bulk-analysis, then, the rock so clearly described by Mr. 

 Hutchings has an affinity with the nepheline-trachytes (nepheline- 

 phonolites) or the trachytic andesites. I fear any ti-ace of original 

 uepheline will have disappeared. 



Dublin, bth Lee. 1891. Gkenville A. J. CoLE. 



CONCRETIONS IN MAGNESIAN LIMESTONE, 

 Sir, — If I am correct in thinking that Mr. Jukes-Browne con- 

 siders that Carbonate of Lime was precipitated on the sea-floor 

 during the formation of the Magnesian Limestone beds, I am 

 inclined to agee with him ; but this merely deals with the origin of 

 beds of Magnesian Limestone, and does not account for the formation 

 of the Concretions. If, however, he intended to suggest that the 

 moisture contained in the deposit held the Carbonate of Lime in 

 solution, I think the amount would be quite inadequate to account for 

 the thick beds of concretions, and this method of origin would not 

 explain the bedding planes which pass uninterruptedly through 

 matrix and concretions alike. E. J. Garwood. 



THE LATE P. HERBERT CARPENTER, M.A., D.Sc. (Camb.) F.R.S., F.L.S. 

 The Editor has received the following note from Mr. Frank 

 Springer, joint-author with Mr. Wacbsmuth of numerous works and 

 memoirs on the N. American Crinoidea. It is a high tribute of 

 regret, regard and esteem from the United States for the loss of one 

 vv'hom we all deeply and sincerely mourn in England. — Edit. 

 Geol. Mag. 



Dear Dr. Woodward, — It is with the most profound regret that 

 I have learned the particulars of the death of our lamented friend 

 Carpenter. It is difficult to aptly express the great loss it is to 

 Wacbsmuth and myself. Carpenter's rare scientiiic attainments and 

 broad learning are known wherever Zoologists exist, but to us, who 

 have been in constant correspondence with him for fourteen years, 

 I think his untimely death brings a keener sorrow than to any 

 outside of the circle of his intimate friends and relations. We had 

 the greatest reason and opportunity to admire and appreciate him. 

 Notwithstanding our many animated controversies in print upon 

 disputed questions of Echinoderm morphology, and still more 

 numerous and earnest battles in private correspondence, in which 

 many a promising theory was warmly advocated, combated, and 

 given up on both sides, our acquaintance long ago assumed the 

 phase of cordial friendship and high personal regard. This was 

 still more firmly cemented by my visit to him, while in England in 

 1887-8, and we feel his loss now as a personal bereavement. We 



