PREFATORY STATEMENT. 5 



Period in Cornwall ; " such a histonj having never before been 

 attempted, it was absolutely necessary to collect the scattered, and 

 often casual, observations of jDrevious workers, more especially 

 those relating to submerged forests and stream-tin sections, which 

 I could have no opportunities of observing ; but the major part of 

 these quotations were reserved for separate publication, such only 

 as were considered indispensable to illustrate the inferences drawn, 

 and for purposes of classification, being retained in the papers under 

 consideration. 



As to original observations, I can only submit to the Council the 

 maps on which my observations were made and the notes written 

 on the spot. These will establish my claim to have exceeded all 

 previous observers in amount of original observation respecting the 

 Post-Tertiary Geology of Cornwall. The Eeferee states that the 

 localities visited by me had previously been described with sections. 

 Many localities had been described, and a few sections had been 

 given ; but the descriptions were wanting in essential particulars, 

 and the sections mere sketches. In almost all of them the Head 

 was barely mentioned, whereas in my paper it has been assigned 

 an important place ; De la Beche neglected it, and Mr. Godwin- 

 Austen gave very few observations of its occurrence in Cornwall, 

 and applied solutions to account for it, which I consider inad- 

 missible in some cases. Even if, in other respects, my paper were 

 a replica of De la Beche's general observations on the recent 

 geology of Cornwall, the descriptions of this stony loam, or Head, and 

 its insertion in the sequence of deposits, looidd redeem the paper from 

 every objection brought against it by the Beferee. 



The repetition complained of in Part 11. was occasioned by the 

 construction of the paper to permit of division into separate parts 

 both in reading and printing, if necessary. 



Notwithstanding this alleged repetition, I have been accused of 

 adopting De la Beche's views, whereas in the essential particulars of 

 the relative age of the Submerged Forests and Baised Beaches, 

 a reference to p. 425, lines 20, etc., of the Beport, ivill show that I 

 entertain a diametrically opposite opinion. 



Sir H. de la Beche embodied his views in chapters, and gave no 



