562 -Rev. A. Irving — Bepip to Prof. Hull. 



far he admits substantially the force of the reasoning adopted by 

 Mr. Goodchild, to which I have referred in that part of my paper in 

 which Prof Hull's name occurs. He then goes on to say that he is 

 quite prepared to " fall back upon Prof Sedgwick's views as soon as 

 the oiBcers of the Geological Survey shall have definitely pronounced 

 in their favour ;" yet in the sequel he does not hesitate to reject the 

 testimony of two several officers (not certainly speaking ex cathedra) 

 of that much respected body in favour of such views : the evidence 

 of two others (some of which is most to the point) he ignores 

 altogether. 



As regards the joint paper of Murchison and Hai'kness on the 

 Edenside rocks, M^hat Prof Hull urges goes certainly to show Hark- 

 ness's modesty in surrendering so soon the views he had previously 

 expressed. Those who know anything of the contests which Mur- 

 chison waged with Sedgwick on the one hand, and with M. Jules 

 Marcou on the other, will reserve to themselves the right of forming 

 a judgment on this matter. 



Two points raised by Prof Hull remain to be specially dealt with : 



1. Mr. Strahan's view, which has been summarized in the Eeporfc 

 of the Proceedings of Section C. of the British Association, 1881. 

 Will Professor Hull be good enough to show by reference to this 

 how I have misrepresented Mr. Strahan ? If he cannot show this, 

 the quarrel remains with Mr. Strahan, who, I dare say, can take 

 care of himself. I may add though, that I was present at the meet- 

 ing of the Section, wlien the said paper was read, and with the 

 sections before the meeting had a better opportunity of judging of 

 the paper than the mere summary of it affords. It is a pity that 

 Prof Hull, who was then in York, should not have refuted Mr. 

 Strahan's arguments at the time. The palseontological evidence 

 cited by Prof. Hull certainly shows the presence of the Magnesian 

 Limestone series in South Lancashire, which no one ever called in 

 question : I fail utterly to see how Prof. Hull can regard the strata 

 which furnish such evidence as the " equivalents of those referred to 

 by Mr. Strahan," without at the same time surrendering the question 

 of these latter being "Upper Permian." 



2. In a footnote Prof. Hull shows himself very incredulous of 

 evidence which he does not like. I presume that he is prepared to 

 allow considerable weight to any views which Mr. De Eance may 

 express on the Permian strata of the Lancashire area ; and in this 

 note he is indirectly bearing his testimony to the value of opinions 

 from such a quarter. Whether or not Prof. Hull's incredulity may 

 be overcome, I know not; though he could easily have obtained 

 from his colleague an affirmation or a denial of what had been at- 

 tributed to him by me, if he had cared very much to know what Mr. 

 De Eance's views really were. At any rate the readers of the Geol. 

 Mag. will be able to judge for themselves, by comparing the follow- 

 ing literal transcript from a MS. in Mr. De Eance's own hand- 

 writing with the statement made in my paper : 



