94 Correspondence — Prof. O. Dewalque — Mr. Jukes- Broivne. 



cannot find any certain evidence of them. Mr. Frederick Cliapman, 

 A.L.S., favours me with the following list of Foramiiiifera. which he 

 has determined on the weathered surface of the flint on one of the 

 Somali implements : — 



OperciiUna, sp. with rib-like septa, common. 

 Heterostegina depressa, D'Orbigny, a very good specimen. 

 Cristellaria, two species, frequent. 

 JPiilvinulinn, one specimen. 



I agree with Mr. Chapman in regarding the rock as being probably 

 of Miocene or Pliocene ag-e. T. Eupeet Jones. 



NOTE ON BINOGYSTIS BARROISI. 



Sir, — Please allow me a few words in reply to the valuable paper 

 of Mr. F. A. Bather on Dinocystis Barroisi.^ In his paper " Sur 

 I'etage devonien des psammites du Condroz en Condroz " (Bull. Acad, 

 des Sci. de Belg., 1875, 2^ ser., t. xxxix, pp. 658-9), Mr. M. Mourlon 

 mentions, from Mr. Malaise's collection, an " asterie " found near 

 Walcourt in an indeterminate "assise" of the "psammites du 

 Condroz." This fossil is no longer quoted in the list of the fossils 

 of this series, given by the same author in his " Geologic de la 

 Belgique," but it is replaced (t. ii, p. 23) by Agelacrinus, very rare, 

 in the "assises" of Montford and Evieux, the two upper assises of 

 our Psammites du Condroz, and this is supposed by Mr. Bather to be 

 the same as his Dinocystis Barroisi. Now the " asterie " of 1875 

 is the species found by Mr. L. Bayet, and described b}'^ me in my 

 " Fragments paleontologiques " (Ann. Soc. geol. de Belg., 1881, 

 t. viii, Mem., pp. 52-54, pi. iii, figs. 1 et 2), under the name of 

 Protaster Decheni, and for important reasons I believe that the 

 Agelacrinus of 1881 is the same species. Recently, I have learned 

 from Mr. L. Bayet that his fossil was found in the " assise 

 d'Evieux." G. Dewalque. 



Liege, January 9, 1899. 



THE SUBMEEGED PLATFOEM OF WESTERN EIJEOPE. 



Sir, — In your January issue Dr. J. W. Spencer takes up the 

 cudgels for Professor Hull on this subject, and treats your readers 

 to a display of quarter-stafi" argument, by which he seems to hit me 

 very hard, but is really cudgelling figments of his own too fervid 

 imagination, fabrics which have far less substance than the windmills 

 on which the renowned Don Quixote exercised his arms. 



Dr. Spencer's communication may, indeed, be described as con- 

 sisting in part of a discussion of points which I did not call in 

 question and in part of denials of statements which were never made. 



He says first that I denied the great subsidence of the continental 

 margins, and a few lines lower (p. 18) that I denied their recent 



1 See Geol. Mag., Dec. IV, Yol. V, December, 1898, p. 543. 



