Pro/. Nicholson — Progress in Palceonfology. 3 



plan of which, is equally comprehensive ; and I am glad to learn 

 that this important contribution to our science is not only actually 

 completed, but that, through the liberal spirit of the University of 

 Cambridge, its publication has been secured, and it is now passing 

 through the press. When we shall have once secured a series of 

 catalogues of this nature, dealing with the fossils of every country, 

 we may for the first time expect that the complex subject of 

 synonymy — at present the curse and opprobrium of Palseontology — 

 will be brought within manageable comjDass. 



Leaving the subject of palseontological literature, I propose briefly 

 to direct your attention to some of the more important dis- 

 coveries which have been made in Palaeontology within the last few 

 years ; and in so doing I shall confine my short review almost 

 entirely to the department of Palasozoology, if only for the reason 

 that I have no claim to the possession of more than a general know- 

 ledge of the difficult subject of Palseophytology or Fossil Botany. As 

 regards this latter branch of Paleeontology, however, I may just 

 notice the very important controversies which have of late arisen as 

 to whether vegetable or animal fossils are entitled to take pre- 

 cedence in determining the stratigraphical horizon and geological 

 age of any disputed group of strata, and there are at least two 

 instances, in which these controversies have dealt with questions of 

 great general interest. In one of the instances to which I allude we 

 find an ancient flora co-existing with a more modern fauna ; and in 

 the other we have modern types of plants associated with old forms 

 of animal life ; but the problem to be solved is essentially the same 

 in both cases. Thus in the Gas-coals of various localities in the upper- 

 most portion of the Bohemian coal-strata a fauna of Permian facies 

 (comprising characteristic Permian species of Xenaeanthus, Acan- 

 thocles, and Palceoniscus) is met with in association with a character- 

 istic assemblage of Carboniferous plants. High authorities, such as 

 Feistmantel, Anton Fritsch, and Krejci, explain this upon the 

 theory that the age of the beds must be determined by the character 

 of their contained animal-remains, and they conclude, therefore, 

 that the deposits in question are to be regarded as referable to the 

 base of the Permian series, or rather as passage-beds between the 

 Carboniferous and Permian. They regard this curious phenomenon, 

 in fact, as being a case in which the flora of a given region has 

 persisted, whilst the fauna has undergone a notable modification. 

 On the other hand, other authorities (such as Stur and Weiss) are of 

 opinion that the age of the beds should be determined from the 

 character of the plants, and that the Bohemian Gas-coals are to 

 be regarded as truly Carboniferous. The balance of evidence, how- 

 ever, is at present decidedly in favour of the former hypothesis. 



The second controversy to which I have referred is of much greater 

 importance, and concerns the boundary-line between the Cretaceous 

 and Tertiary deposits of North America. In the Old World, as is 

 well known, there is a gi'eat break between the highest Cretaceous 

 and the lowest Tertiary sediments — a break marked not only by 

 universal unconformity, but also by a great change in the character- 



