August 8, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



2'6S 



nata, L. Leidyi var. Baentscliiana, Estheria 

 Dawsoni, Antliracopalcemon n. sp., Carhonia 

 sp., Anthracomya elongata, A. ohtusa, and 

 Spirorbis eriana, were among the fossils col- 

 lected. Further, Dr. Ami, who in 1897 and 

 1898 seems to have made extensive colleetiona, 

 states that although he constantly made 

 search for Devonian fossils in the beds under 

 consideration, only Carboniferous types were 

 discovered. He therefore distinctly refers 

 the beds to the Carboniferous, although, for 

 stratigraphical reasons apparently, he places 

 them in the Lower Carboniferous. 



At this time, perceiving that the paleontol- 

 ogists were going astray and that by refer-' 

 ring the beds in question to the Carboniferous 

 they had ' hindered not helped in mapping the 

 comparatively simple geological structure of 

 these formations ' in Nova Scotia, Mr. Flet- 

 cher in a paper* on ' Geological Nomencla- 

 ture in Nova Scotia,' sounded a note of warn- 

 ing, and stated the real age and ' simple geo- 

 logical structure ' of the beds as he considers 

 these to have been irrefragably established 

 stratigraphically by Dr. Ells and himself. By 

 means of the parallel column he graphically 

 displays the supposedly ridiculous blunders of 

 the paleontologists, among whom the paleo- 

 botanists receive special attention. As Mr. 

 Fletcher had misconstrued certain statements 

 of the writer besides erroneously crediting him 

 with a probably erroneous correlation of the 

 Union beds, the writer, in an articlef on ' Some 

 Paleobotanical Aspects of the Upper Paleozoic 

 in Nova Scotia,' expressed his views more ex- 

 plicitly and suggested that there might have 

 been a mistake either in tracing the beds or in 

 interpreting the structure. The region is one 

 of metamorphic and locally of closely folded 

 strata which are extensively covered by drift. 

 It is therefore one in which stratigraphic work, 

 when at variance with the paleontology, does 

 not command unqualified confidence. The 

 heresy of these suggestions is illuminated in 

 the contributions and communications pub- 



* Trans. N. 8. Inst. Sci., Vol. X., pt. 2, pp. 235- 

 244. 



f Can. Rec. Set., Vol. VIII., No. 5, January, 1901, 

 pp. 271-280. 



lished by Dr. G. F. Matthew and Dr. Ells dur- 

 ing the last twelve months. 



Since the burden of this criticism and cor- 

 rection is addressed to the paleobotanists, and 

 since the vehemence, volume and ubiquity of 

 the communications may lead casual read- 

 ers to conclude that the question is settled and 

 that the paleontologists have abandoned faith 

 in the faunal and fioral evidence in the beds 

 as means of discriminating Carboniferous 

 from Middle Devonian, it becomes a duty to 

 notice these articles and to point out some ob- 

 stacles in the way of so speedy a termination 

 of the discussion. 



In a communication, ' Are the St. John 

 Plant Beds Carboniferous?' Dr. Matthew* 

 slates the sequence of the Upper Paleozoic for- 

 mations in eastern New Brunswick, and very 

 briefiy outlines the geological history of the 

 region as prevailingly interpreted. He also 

 argues that the St. John genus Megalopteris 

 assuredly existed before the Pottsville (Mill- 

 stone Grit), it having been found, he says, by 

 Andrews in earlier beds in Ohio, and by Les- 

 quereux in beds of Mauch Chunk shale chiefly 

 in the southern and the Mississippi states. 

 This Megalopteris proof is founded on a false 

 premise, the beds of the South and of Ohio be- 

 ing in the Pottsville, lower than which the ge- 

 nus does not seem to have been found in any 

 part of the world. 



In the next paper, on ' The Devonian of the 

 Acadian Province,' Dr. EUsf repeats the con- 

 clusions of the stratigraphers that the St. John 

 plant beds (Little River) are beneath not only 

 the Lower Carboniferous Limestone, but also 

 the ' lower sandstone group ' (which is gener- 

 ally regarded as Lower Carboniferous, but 

 which Dr. Ells seems to regard as Devonian) 

 and a great portion, at least, of the underlying 

 Perry beds of eastern Maine. The paper con- 

 tains no stratigraphical details. Dr. Ells lays 

 great stress on Sir William Dawson's conclu- 

 sion that the St. John plants are Middle De- 

 vonian, and even uses it as argument to show 

 that the Eiversdale plants also are Middle De- 

 vonian, though Sir William's insistence that 

 the latter were not Devonian, but Carbonifer- 



* Amer. Geol., June, 1901, pp. 383-386. 



t Can. Rec. Sci., Vol. VIII., No. 6, pp. 335-343. 



