Reviews— Whitaker's Geology of London. 569 
further information concerning any of the wells, and for records of 
any new sections. : 
Turning now to the first volume, we may note that the whole of 
Middlesex, and parts of Oxfordshire, Bucks, Herts, Hssex, Berks, 
Surrey and Kent, are included in the country described. It is indeed 
the tract represented on Sheets 1, 2, and 7 (and northern portions of 
6 and 8) of the Geological Survey Map. So far as regards the Chalk 
and Eocene strata (the description of which occupies about one-half 
of the volume), the work may be regarded as, in great measure, 
a new edition of Mr. Whitaker’s Memoir on the Geology of the 
London Basin (Memoirs Geol. Survey, vol. iv.), although some 
portions of the area described in that Memoir are outside the limits 
~ assigned to the work before us. 
_ The parts relating to the Glacial Drifts and newer deposits, filling 
the second half of the volume, are for the most part new, including 
as they do the description of the beds in the southern portion 
of Essex. In short, about two-thirds of the entire work may be 
considered as new. 
A record of facts, valuable enough in questions of practical geology 
and as material from which scientific conclusions may be drawn, 
cannot of course furnish matter which even the most enthusiastic 
student would care to read steadily through. Details, however, are 
printed in small type, while general remarks on the more important 
facts, historical reviews, and conclusions are printed in larger type, 
These latter will be read with advantage and interest. The author 
indeed has so exhaustively studied the literature of the subject, that 
the reader, unless he be anxious to learn in more detail the theoreti- 
cal views of other workers, need scarcely refer to the previous 
literature, for Mr. Whitaker has acknowledged all sources of infor- 
mation. It need hardly be said that the author takes an eminently 
practical and common-sense view on debateable subjects, and while 
his remarks are written in a judicial spirit, they are at the same 
time cheery and not seldom humorous. 
Students of Mr. Whitaker’s writings are aware that the author 
has not manifested much liking for purely theoretical or speculative 
geology, at any rate he has hitherto abstained more than many 
men with much less experience from expressing theoretical views. 
But now we are glad to find the author, in dealing with the 
River Drift, makes the following remarks (p. 829): “ If, however, 
in the Historical Review of the subject, objection is often taken to 
the opinions quoted, and my own view is sometimes given in a by 
no means undecided manner, let it not be put down to the absolute 
loss of former modesty (and modesty should grow with knowledge) ; 
but to the fact that one is bound, in the present case, to state one’s 
own opinion, derived from prolonged study of the beds, and to 
[avoid] the manifest unfairness of continuing to shelter oneself 
behind other observers; albeit the shield of Professor Prestwich 
is used with great advantage.” No one has had the experience 
possessed by Mr. Whitaker in the area he now describes, and all 
will be glad to welcome the expression of his opinions. 
