316 Reviews — Conversations with Little Geologists. 



thougli between these two Indian groups there is the greatest 

 stratigraphical and palseontological break in the whole Gondwana 

 system ; 6th, that no evidence of value has been produced for the 

 classification of the Darauda series as Lower Triassic (Bunter), the 

 Damuda flora having far less in common with the Bunter or any 

 Triassic European flora than it has with the Upper Coal-measures 

 of Newcastle, etc., New South Wales [presumably Carboniferous] ; 

 7th, that Dr. Feistmantel's classification of the Australian plant- 

 bearing beds on the authority of Mr. Clarke diff'ers materially from 

 all the data published by Mr. Clarke himself, etc. ; 8th, that the 

 Karharbari beds must be separated from the Damudas and classed 

 with the Talchirs ; 9th, that it is unwise to come to any positive 

 conclusion as to the Carboniferous or Triassic age of the Damuda 

 and Karharbari beds ; 10th, that the Upper Gondwanas may be 

 equivalent to the European Jurassic series approximately, and the 

 Lower Gondwanas to Triasso-Permian, also approximately, but close 

 definition of minor horizons in the Gondwana system is premature ; 

 11th, and finally, that an attempt to define geological horizons in 

 countries remote from Europe by fossil plants alone, can only lead 

 to error : that Dr. Feistmantel's attempt to make the Indian groups 

 suit the European sequence is a failure, and the constant assertion 

 that particular groups belong to distinct European subdivisions is 

 misleading and unscientific. 



Mr. Wynne's note consists only of a few lines to set himself right 

 in consequence of an attributed ambiguity in his previous use of the 

 word " erratic," in its oldest sense, for wandering fragments, the 

 sense in which he employed it. 



II. — Conversations with Little Geologists on the Six Days of 

 Creation. By J. W. Grover, C.E, (With a Geological Chart.) 



THE Preface shows this to be one of the many works which have 

 owed their publication to the well-meant but injudicious inter- 

 position of " friends of the author." The writer acknowledges his 

 obligations to "Hugh Miller, Dr. Buckland, and McCausland," as 

 well as "those standard authorities Lyell, Murchison, Figuier {}.), 

 and Dr. Lindley." On p. 1, however, in answer to a question, 

 '•' Did Moses, who wrote the Book of Genesis, understand Geology ?" 

 the author remarks, " Not as we do ; he wrote as he was inspired 

 or taught by God Himself," and adds, " I want to show you how 

 wonderfully the formation of the earth confirms the first chapter in 

 the Bible." 



Mr. Grover follows Hugh Miller and some other geologists of a 

 former generation, in considering the six days of Genesis to mean 

 six long periods of time, and one of the peculiarities of the 

 author is the rigidity with which he settles the duration of these 

 periods. The first day includes the Cambrian, the second the 

 Silurian periods, while the third comprises the Devonian and Car- 

 boniferous. The Permian and Triassic rocks were the work of the 

 fourth day, and the Lias, Oolite, and Chalk of the fifth. The sixth 

 day includes the Tertiary strata, up to the "Diluvium." Nothing 



