December 36, 1890.] 



SCIENCE. 



359 



almost every thing in life worth living for — -excepting marriage 

 with one another. •' Shut out " be says, " from church privileges, 

 as preaching of the Word, prayer- meetings, socials, receptions, 

 lectures, concerts, parties, what remains to them of all that makes 

 life pleasurable to us ? ... To forbid them, as some would, 

 matrimony, the one remaining but most helpful and enjoyable of 

 all social and family relations, is a monstrous cruelty with very 

 little reason" (Science, Oct. 31, p. 248). 



But Dr. Gillett need not feel disturbed about this matter. Neither 

 I, nor any one else, so far as I know, proposes to practise this 

 cruelty upon the deaf. My position upon this subject is substan- 

 tially that taken by President Gallaudet {Scieyice, Nov 38, p. 395). 

 I thoroughly agree with him in all he has said .concerning inter- 

 marriage, and thoroughly disagree with the rest of his article. 



Dr. Gillett advocates intermarriage because the affliction is so 

 great, and ignores heredity because it is so slight. President 

 Gallaudet's position is, J think, equally inconsistent. He advo- 

 cates a certain system of education, while at the same time he 

 deprecates its results. Segrcs^atiom and the sign-language are the 

 chief causes that have led to the intermarriages of the deaf and 

 dumb. He advocates the causes, while he deplores the result. I 

 may have more to say upon this subject at some future time. 



ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL. 

 Belnn Bhreagb, C. B., Dec. 10. 



The Geology of Quebec City. 



In reference to the geology of Quebec, I can only say that prac- 

 tically the discussion of the citadel rocks has at present passed 

 into the hands of the paleontologist. There is nothing conclusive 

 in the stratigraphy of the region itself to show their exact hori- 

 zon. They are bounded on all sides by faults of great extent, by 

 which they are brought into contact with rocks of Sillery (Upper 

 Cambrian) age on the mainland above Quebec City, with rocks of 

 Levis (Lower Silurian) age at the west end of the Island of Or- 

 leans, and with the typical Hudson River rocks to the north 

 of the city. The equivalents of the citadel rocks, as seen on 

 the south side of the St. Lawrence River on Gaspfi peninsula (see 

 "Report of the Geological Survey,"' 1881-83), are, by a fault, 

 brought in contact with Sillery rocks also; and the limited out- 

 crops of these at Etchemin, on Crane Island, and at several other 

 points, show a preci>ely similar arrangement. 



The principal stratigraphical evidence bearing on the age of 

 these rocks of Quebec City must, then, I take it, be looked for 

 elsewhere. In the southern part of the province about Lake 

 Memphremagog, graphitic shales containing gi-aptolites, described 

 by Lapworth as similar to those from Quebec City, also occur. 

 These are in connection with certain gray and blackish slates and 

 limestones which are an integral part, in so far as we can deter- 

 mine, of the series of slates and limestones which have been al- 

 ready described as Lower Trenton, or possibly Upper Chazy. The 

 statement in Lapworth's paper, published in the " Transactions of 

 the Royal Society of Canada." pp. 171 and 175, seems to be very 

 clearly confirmed; and, from all the evidence at present in our 

 possession, I can see no reason for changing the statement made 

 in my report on this section ("Geoloffical Survey Report," 1887- 

 88, pp. 83, 84, K); viz., that these rocks represent a peculiar devel- 

 opment of strata of Trenton age, and probably even down in that 

 formation. R. W. Ells. 



Ottawa, Dec. 16. 



Reperrinq to the article on the above subject in your issue of 

 Dec. 5, I may say that Mr. Ami should have restricted his obser- 

 vation to paleontological facts ; and the appropriate heading would 

 have been, ' ' On the Paleontology," etc., not " On the Geology of 

 Quebec." As it stands, the article is an instance of what I have 

 elsewhere designated ■• paleontological stratigraphy." 



I was, I believe, the first to point out in 1876-77, and purely on 

 stratigraphical evidence, the fact that the rocks of Quebec City 

 were not, as mapped by Sir William Logan, Levis, but that they 

 were certainly the extension of those on the north shore of Orleans 

 Island, described on p. 200 of the "Geology of Canada" (1863) 

 as Hudson River, and contain certain fossils, figured and described 

 on the same page. I at the same lime, 1877-78, traced out, and 



delineated on the map, the approximate course of the fault which 

 cuts off the Levis formation, with its characteristic fauna, from 

 the north side of the river. At that time no fossils had been 

 found in the rocks of Quebec City, though mapped as part of the 

 Levis formation (see Geology of Canada, 1863, p. 200) ; but, hav- 

 ing determined by close and careful stratigraphical observation 

 what these rocks were, I sent our collector, Mr, Weston, to Que- 

 bec to seek for the fossils, which I felt confident must be there, I 

 told him, and that they would prove to be the same as those of Or- 

 leans Island, north shore. As Mr. Ami states, some forty or fifty 

 species have since been found by Mr. Weston and others in these 

 rocks. Some of them are from conglomerate bands, and there- 

 fore, like some of those in the Levis conglomerates, may be de- 

 rived from older strata. Mr. Ami says these strata cannot be re- 

 ferred to the Lorraine nor to the Utica, but he fails to give any 

 sufficient reason for this positive assertion. He then states Sir 

 William Logan's opinion, but does not state mine, though he admits, 

 without saying by whom it was determined, the equivalency of the- 

 shales on the north shore of the Island of Orleans -with the Quebec 

 City rocks. He still wants to separate the rocks at Montmorency 

 Falls, which he, following Logan and myself, now recognizes as- 

 Utica, Hudson, or above the Trenton, The structure is diagram- 

 matically shown in my section {Descriptive Sketch, p. 14) and in 

 Logan's section (Geology of Canada, 1863, p. 234). The two sec- 

 tions are practically alike, and I believe are in a general sense 

 correct. There is not a particle of stratigraphical evidence of any 

 break between Montmorency and the Island of Orleans; but there- 

 is much folding, the result probably of the faults 1 and 2. — a slide 

 down and a shove up respectively (see Fig. 1 in Descriptive 

 Sketch). Mr. Ami's contention is based solely on his own deter- 

 mination of certain very imperfect specimens of fossils. These 

 determinations may or may not be correct, Thej- do not agree 

 with Logan's (Geology of Canada, 1863, p. 200). Ami omits from 

 his list Kraptolithus bicornis, prisiis, and ramosus, stated to be 

 Utica-Hudson species (I believe these do occur in Mr. Ami's lists, 

 but under new names). But, even suppose Mr. Ami's determina- 

 tion to be correct, it would not in the least change my opinion as 

 regards the position, in what we call the Cambro-Silurian system, 

 of these rocks; viz., that they constitute a part of the great Cal- 

 careo bituminous shale formation which overlies the Trenton 

 limestone, and which is known as Utica and Hudson, or Utica- 

 Lorraine, or Cincinnati group, and which has nowhere, from the 

 Lower St. Lawrence to Lake Superior and Wisconsin, ever been 

 seen beneath the Trenton. 



I cannot see my way to construct a map or a section, having- 

 regard to the known stratigraphical facts, which would bring the 

 Quebec City rocks below the Trenton ; nor do the fossils (see lists 

 in Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Canada, vol. iii. part 

 2, pp. 77 K to 81 K) seem to point in that direction, such as 

 Asaphiis (Canadense?), Trinucleus, Leptcena sericea. and the 

 graptolites above named (bicornis, pristis, and ramosus). I see 

 no reason for Mr, Ami's remarks about the name "Hudson 

 River," or that there ever was any coijfusion in its use. The 

 name and the equivalent terms — Lorraine or Cincinnati — are 

 well known, and have always been applied to formations above, 

 or supposed to be above, the Trenton, and below the Medina. 

 The only confusion has been in defining the areas occupied by 

 these formations. 



There are, in connection with the old Quebec group area from 

 Vermont to Cape Rosier, still a few doubtful points: 1. The 

 question whether the rocks of Cape Diamond and Quebec City are 

 above or below the Trenton limestone, i.e., Utica, Hudson, or 

 Chazy ; 2, The question whether the group of sti-ata originally 

 designated by Logan as " The Magnesian Belt," and by myself as 

 the "Volcanic Group," which include the serpentines, with as- 

 bestos and other altered igneous rocks, are Upper Archaean or 

 Lower Cambrian, No fossils have yet been found in any of the 

 strata of this group; but from other considerations, physical,, 

 lithological, and stratigraphical, I am inclined to think they are 

 pre-Cambrian, and about the age of the upper part of what we 

 designate "Huroniau" in the Lake Superior region. 



Alfred R. C, Selwyn. 



Ottawa, Can., Dec. 16. 



