Skptembke 26, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



513 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 



' STRATIGRAPHY VERSUS PALEONTOLOGY IN NOVA 

 SCOTIA.' 



To THE Editor of Science : May I ask your 

 space for a few words in reply to remarks by 

 my friend Mr. David WTiite on ' Stratigraphy 

 versus Paleontology in Nova Scotia' (Science, 

 August, 1902j page 232). 



While I cannot pretend to the wide and 

 varied acquaintance with the Paleozoic flora 

 which he possesses, I may have a closer local 

 knowledge of the conditions attending the 

 occurrence of the floras that form the sub- 

 ject of his communication, than he has, and 

 so be in a position to offer some suggestions 

 that may have value in deciding the age of 

 these floras. 



I fully agree with him, however, in saying 

 that a more thorough study of the paleontolog- 

 ical question is desirable; but not in his 

 claim that this will settle the question of age 

 — unless the stratigraphy is considered as well. 



As attention has lately been called to the 

 remarkable resemblance of the fossil floras 

 in certain basins in Nova Scotia and New 

 Brunswick to those of the Coal Measures, and 

 to each other, and arguments deduced from the 

 Nova Scotia organic remains are applied to 

 those in the neighboring province in assigning 

 their age, we should not forget that there 

 are vei'y considerable difierences both litholog- 

 ical and paleontological in the two districts 

 and overlooking these tends to ' confuse the 

 issue.' 



The Nova Scotia deposits may or may not 

 be of the same age as those in New Brunswick, 

 but until there is a full agreement that they 

 are contemporaneous, it seems unwise to apply 

 arguments deduced from the former to fix the 

 age of the latter. The basins are 150 to 200 

 miles apart. 



\t page 232 Mr. White gives a list of about 

 a dozen reptiles, crustaceans and molluscs 

 found in the Nova Scotian beds, which he 

 claims are Carboniferous types. Not one of 

 these except the worm, Spirorhis eriensi, has 

 been found in the New Brunswick beds, and 

 yet they are used (page 235) to show that 

 the latter beds are Carboniferous. If Mr. 

 White will reread my article to which he re- 



fers at page 234, he will find that it is based 

 entirely on the New Brunswick beds, the flora 

 of which was first described; and to which 

 those of the neighboring province of Nova 

 Scotia were referred, by Messrs. Fletcher and 

 Ells, as to a standard. 



Now if we take the evidence of the fauna 

 actually found in the New Brunswick beds 

 we find that it cuts the opposite way from 

 that cited by Mr. White from the Nova Sco- 

 tian beds. Of numerous insects and myria- 

 pods found in the New Brunswick (St. John) 

 plant beds 7ione are known in the Carbon- 

 iferous. Of the forms referred to the Crus- 

 tacea all are difl^erent from the Carboniferous 

 forms, and the genera also diflier. The two 

 land molluscs are unknown in the Carbon- 

 iferous. 



That Carboniferous types of plants should 

 be found as low down as the Devonian need 

 not create surprise. Has not Walcott found 

 Devonian fishes in the Silurian, and Silurian 

 corals in the Ordovician? 



We await the discovery in other parts of 

 the world of plants in pre-Carboniferous strata 

 which shall sustain Sir William Dawson's 

 reference of the St. John plant beds to the 

 Devonian, certainly the latest system to which- 

 they can be assigned. When Mr. White or 

 some other geologist shall find in the wide do- 

 main of the United States, or some other part 

 of the world, a Devonian of Silurian lagoon 

 and marsh deposit, with plants, insects, myria- 

 pods, isopods, etc., of quite different type from 

 those of the St. John plant beds, then we may 

 consider whether the Canadian paleophytolo- 

 gists and stratigraphers have been at fault. 



Mr. White refers, at page 235, to the ' thor- 

 oughly studied magnificent section of De- 

 vonian near the Gulf of St. Lawrence' as 

 having no signs of ' the extraordinary paleon- 

 tological anomaly ' of the St. John plant beds. 

 I fear that in this case he has not considered 

 the importance of haiitat in modifying the 

 distribution of plants. Presuming that in the 

 reference to a Devonian section he alludes to 

 that at the head of the Bale Chaleur, the com- 

 parison is quite out of place; that was a 

 lacustrine and estuarine deposit with fishes, 

 etc., and some plants. It cannot be too 



