OcToBKU 19, lss;;.J 



SCIENCE. 



.V29 



advance ; for example, in the valley of tlie Oonau. 

 Kspccially in regard to tlie Caucasus, his lnveslii;at ions 

 in the rejtion convinced him that no people already 

 suflicienlly civilized to employ metals could have 

 passed over this range; and, on account of the geo- 

 graphical relations, we must assume that the Aryan 

 peoples first diviiled in central Asia, and separated 

 widely along the northern coast of the Aral and (.'iis- 

 pian seas, and then proceeded through modern Kus- 

 sia, where the characteristic bronzes are not found, 

 or westward through Asia Minor. C)nee in Greece, 

 it is highly probable that Italy was their next step. 

 A fact brought forward by Iloclistetter in support of 

 his theory — viz., the lack of ribbed bronzes, ilestea 

 dieordoni — has proved a mistake. A point of attack 

 is presented by the same investigator, in his assertion 

 that the discoveries at Ilallstadt do not date back of 

 the second millenary before the Cliristian era, and 

 immediately preceded the Koman civilization; and 

 that, at the time of the subjugation of Xoricum by 

 i;ome, the manufacture of bronze already existed. 



At the close of his address, Virchow merely touched 

 upon other anthropological questions, and pointed 

 out that philology and archeology alone were not in 

 condition to relieve the darkness which still con- 

 cealed the invention and spread of bronze; and that 

 somatic anthropology, i.e., the investigation of the 

 physical constitution of the peoples under consider- 

 ation, as seen from the bones preserved to iis, may 

 here have a final word to say, and may, perhaps, 

 answer the important question, whether the cultiva- 

 tion of central Europe is to be traced to the influ- 

 ence of two different families, or to only one, the 

 Aryan. 



THE VEGETATION OF THE CARBO- 

 NIFEROUS AGE.^ 



Much of the second decade of my life was spent in 

 the practical pursuit of geology in the field ; and 

 throughout most of that period I enjoyed almost daily 

 intercourse with William Smith, the father of Eng- 

 lish geology. But, in later years, circumstances re- 

 stricted my studies to the paleontological side of the 

 science : hence I was anxious that the council of 

 the British association should place in this chair 

 some one more familiar than myself with the later 

 developments of geographical geology. But my 

 friend. Professor Bonney, failing to recognize the 

 force of my objections, intimated to me that I might 

 render some service to the association by placing be- 

 fore you a sketch of the present state of our knowl- 

 cilge of the vegetation of the carboniferous age. 



This being a subject respecting which I have 

 formed some definite 0]iinion3, 1 am going to act 

 upon the suggestion. To some this may savor of 

 'shop-talk;' but such is often the only talk which a 

 man can indulge in intelligently: and to close his 



' Opening address bt-furf Ihe section of geology of tlio JtrltUl) 

 association for the ailv:incerocnl of science. By Prof. \V. C. 

 Williamson, LI..D., F.U.S., president of tho section. From 

 advance sheets kindly furnished by the editor t>t Nature. 



mouth on his special themes may compel him either 

 to talk nonsense or to be silent. 



Whilst undertaking this task, I am alive to the 

 difficulties which surround it, especially those arising 

 from the wide differences of opinion amongst paleo- 

 botanists on some fundamental points. On some of 

 the most important of these there is a substantial 

 agreement between the English and German paleon- 

 tologists. The dissentients are chiefly, though not 

 entirely, to be found amongst those of France, who 

 have, in my humble opinion, been unduly influenced 

 by what is in itself a noble motive ; viz , a strong rev- 

 erence for the views of their illustrious teacher, the 

 late Adolphe Brongniart. Such a tindency speaks 

 well for their hearts; though it may, in there days of 

 rapid scientific progress, seriously mislead their heads. 

 I shall, however, endeavor to put before you faith- 

 fully the views entertained by my dis'inguished 

 French friends, M. Renault, M. Grand-Eury, and the 

 Marquis of Saporta, giving, at the same time, \yhat I 

 deem to be good reasons for not agreeing with them. 

 I believe that many of our disagreements arise from 

 geological differences Ijetween the Frencli carbonifer- 

 ous strata and those in our own islands. There are 

 some important types of carboniferous plants that 

 appe.irtobemuch better represented amongst us than 

 in France: hence we have, I believe, more abundant 

 material than the French paleontologists possess, for 

 arriving at sound conclusions respecting these plants. 

 We have rich sources, supplying specimens in which 

 the internal organization is preserved, in eastern 

 Lancashire and western Yorkshire, Arran, Burnt- 

 island, and other scattered localities: France has 

 equally rich localities at Autun and at St. Etienne. 

 But some important difference exists between these 

 localities. The French objects are preserved in an 

 impracticable siliceous matrix, extremely trouble- 

 some to work, except .in specimens of small size: 

 ours, on the other hand, are chiefly embedded in a 

 calcareous material, which, whilst it preserves the 

 objects in an exquisite manner, does not prevent our 

 dissecting examples of considerable magnitude. But, 

 besides this, we are much richer in huge Lepidoden- 

 droid and Sigillafian trees, with their Stigmarian 

 roots, than the French are : hence we have a vast 

 mass of material illustrating the history of these 

 types of vegetation, in which they seem to be serious- 

 ly deficient. This fact alone appears to me suflicient 

 to account for many of the wide (Hfferences of opin- 

 ion that exist between us, respecting these trees. My 

 second difficulty springs out of the imperfect st.ite of 

 our knowledge of the subject. One prominent cause 

 of this imperfection lies in the state in which our 

 specimens are found. They are not only too fre- 

 quently fi-ivgmentary, but most of those fragments 

 only present the external forms of the objects. Now, 

 mere extern.al forms of fossil plants are somewhat like 

 similarities of sound in the comparative study of lan- 

 guages: they are too often inisafe guides. On the 

 other hand, microscopic internal organizations in 

 the former subjects are like grammatical indentities 

 in the latter one: they indicate deep affinities that 

 I)romise to guide the student safely to philosophical 



