214 Remarks on Professor McCoy's Commentary. 



marked,, and of wliicli I carried a small brittle portion to 

 Melbourne, witli an abundance of other fossils from different 

 portions of tbe colony, for the sole purpose of exhibiting 

 them, and I have no doubt that Mr. Russell will be able to 

 prove whether the slab came from the bottom or the top of 

 the shaft, if any one is anxious to inquire. 



To sum up all, I may here state that, though it is very 

 easy to make the '^ worst appear the better reason," I have 

 no object in any controversy on this question but truth. 

 Having, since my acquaintance with the whole of the facts, 

 always found a difficulty in reconciling the idea of two epochs 

 in the formation of the deposits including our coal-beds, in 

 consequence of the apparent continuous succession of those 

 deposits, and the occurrence of coal throughout, together 

 with the absence of oolitic zoological, and the presence of 

 palaeozoic zoological forms, I have not seen fit to renounce 

 the opinion which is shared by others as well as by myself, 

 because at present we have no grounds to do so ; but it is 

 easy to gather from this paper, as well as from other evi- 

 dences of my own, that I am quite ready to admit, when 

 proved, that some of the beds are younger than my fourth 

 division or Mr. McCoy^s base of the carboniferous system, 

 and may, with the example of India before us, be even 

 younger than oolite ; but, with the idea of one succession, I 

 must renounce the idea of all above the base being oolitic. 



If sufficient evidence be produced to prove my opinions 

 to be erroneous, I will readily renounce them; only, I shall 

 take the liberty of expressing my deep regret if anything I 

 happen to say excite feelings and expressions which are 

 unbecoming the philosophy of a civilized era,. 



