492 P>^of. E. Hull — The Permian and Trias. 



of the view that it is of Permian age. Now, I wish to state, that 

 personally I have never given an opinion to this effect, nor have I 

 had any, but a very limited, opportunity of forming one. When it 

 was announced some years ago by Sir E. I. Murchison and Professor 

 Harkness, that the Upper Sandstones of the valley of the Eden, 

 previously supposed to be Triassic, were in reality of Permian, age, 

 I accepted their views with the reliance due to statements proceeding 

 from such high sources. But as the evidence was rather of an 

 inferential and indirect nature, I am quite prepared to fall back on 

 Professor Sedgwick's views as soon as the officers of the Geological 

 Survey shall have definitely pronounced in their favour. 



I must, however, take some exception to the manner in which Mr. 

 Irving has represented the respective positions of Sir R. I. Murchison 

 and Professor Harkness in reference to this question. It is scarcely 

 correct to say, that the former "manipulates the observations" and 

 "overrides the previous judgment of the latter " as regards the age 

 of the UpjDer Sandstones. As a matter of fact, Murchison and 

 Harkness are equally responsible for the views expressed in their 

 joint paper.^ Murchison writes the " Introduction " — but all through 

 the statements are made in the plural number, and are the result of 

 their joint observations. Of this any one may satisfy himself by 

 reference to the paper, and I think Mr. Irving was hardly justified 

 in his way of representing the course taken by my former chief. 



My next point is in reference to Mr. Irving's statements regarding 

 the " Upper Permian " beds of South Lancashire. I very much 

 regret that it betrays a hastiness of inference not to be expected of 

 one who undertakes to review the whole question of the relations of 

 British Permian and Trias. Starting with the statement that Mr. 

 Strahan has " recently shown " that a certain duplex series of marls 

 and sandstones which had been observed by Mr. Binney and myself to 

 "crop out in one place " — and were supposed by them to be Permian 

 — are really the base of the Triassic series in that district, he goes on 

 to question the existence of Upper Permian beds in South Lancashire 

 altogether. Now, in the first place, 1 beg to say that Mr. Strahan 

 7ms slioivn nothing of the kind; and even if he had done so as regards 

 the St. Helen's section, it would not have aflected the general ques- 

 tion of the existence of Permian beds in South Lancashire. The 

 locality in question is at the extreme western limit of the district, 

 and isolated from the main tract which ranges from Winwick to 

 Manchester. Mr. Strahan's visit to South Lancashire must have 

 been a flying one, in which he gathered up the most recent informa- 

 tion from new sinkings, and if he had contented himself with giving 

 the information thus acquired, without the generalizations in which 

 he indulges, I would have had no objection to ofi'er. But I must 

 protest against such ex parte publication of views by an officer of 

 the Survey made under such circumstances, in the face of those first 

 arrived at by such a careful observer as the late Mr. Binney, who 

 spent a lifetime in collecting evidence and formulating his conclu- 

 sions thereon ; and secondly, of myself, who spent several years in 

 1 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xx. p. 144. 



