SEPTEMBER 22, 1899. ] 
Owing to circumstances it has unfortu- 
nately happened that very little paleonto- 
logical work has been done in Nova Scotia 
or on Nova Scotian material since 1873. 
With the view of stimulating the prosecu- 
tion of researches in this direction, collec- 
tions of fossils have been made, during the 
past four years, and chiefly by Dr. Ami, of 
the Geological Survey of Canada, from 
many localities in the province, and some 
selected sets of these fossils have been for- 
warded to specialists. 
In the Christmas and New Year’s week 
of 1897 and 1898 Mr. David White, of the 
United States Geological Survey, examined 
the fossil plants from Nova Scotia and New 
Brunswick in the Peter Redpath Museum 
at Montreal and in the Museum of the 
Geological Survey at Ottawa. On the evi- 
dence of these plant remains Mr. White 
came to the following conclusions, which 
are summarized, by permission, from an un- 
published report, in the form of a letter ad- 
dressed to Dr. H. M. Ami, and dated Janu- 
ary 12,1898: (1) That the plant-bearing 
portion of the Horton series of Nova Scotia, 
as shown by Sir William Dawson in 1873, 
is nearly contemporaneous with the Pocono 
formation of the eastern United States, 
which has long been assigned to a basal 
position in the Carboniferous system. (2) 
That the Riversdale series of Nova Scotia 
(which Sir William Dawson referred to the 
Millstone Grit) is of Carboniferous age and 
assuredly newer than the Horton series. 
(3) That the plant-bearing beds near St. 
John, New Brunswick, are not Middle De- 
vonian, as had previously been supposed, 
but Carboniferous, and that they are the 
exact equivalents of the Riversdale series of 
Nova Scotia. 
Early in January last, collections of fos- 
sil plants from the Horton and Riversdale 
series and Harrington River rocks, at sev- 
eral localities in Nova Scotia, were sent to 
Mr. R. Kidston, of Stirling, Scotland, an 
SCIENCE. 
405 
experienced paleo-botanist, for examination 
and study. In a manuscript report upon 
these collections, addressed to the Director of 
the Canadian Survey, and received May 8, 
1899, Mr. Kidston comes to almost exactly 
the same conclusions as those previously ar- 
rived at by Mr. White, and on perfectly inde- 
pendent grounds. In thisreport Mr. Kidston 
expresses the following opinions: (1) Ofthe 
Horton series he says: ‘‘ These rocks ap- 
pear to be undoubtedly Lower Carbonifer- 
ous.” ‘There is no evidence at all to sup- 
port the opinion that they are of Devonian 
age.’’? ‘All the evidence derived from a 
study of their fossils points very strongly 
against this view.”’ (2) Of the Riversdale 
series he says: ‘‘ The two divisions of this 
series, the Riversdale Station and Harring- 
ton River rocks, may be treated together, as 
they contain the same fossils and are evi- 
dently of the same age.’”’ The whole of the 
fossil plants from the Riversdale series have 
a most pronounced Upper Carboniferous 
facies and markedly possess the character- 
istics of a Coal Measure Flora. ‘‘ Judged 
from a European comparison, no other con- 
clusion can be arrived at.’ (8) Lastly, 
he says that ‘‘ the question of the age of the 
Riversdale series is inseparably connected 
with the question of the age of the plant 
beds of St. John, New Brunswick.” ‘The 
species contained in the Riversdale series ~ 
are also met with in the St. John plant 
beds, where, however, a greater number of 
species has been discovered.” ‘J do not,” 
he adds, “ wish to express my views as to 
the age of the St. John plant beds too 
strongly, but, from what I have been able 
to learn from a study of the literature of 
the subject and an examination of speci- 
mens from these beds, it appears to me that 
they possess a flora of a much higher hori- 
zon than that assigned to them, and that in 
reality they are most probably Upper Car- 
boniferous.” ‘‘It must, however, be re- 
membered that since Sir William Dawson 
