ANNIVERSARY ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT. xlv 



any unnecessary delay. The author then enters into a full and 

 detailed historical statement of the reasons which have delayed the 

 publication of the work, adding a well-merited eulogium of Prof. 

 M 'Coy's merits, and of the manner in which he has carried out the 

 task allotted to him. 



In the tabular view above alluded to. Prof. Sedgwick gives what 

 he believes to be a true geographical nomenclature of the Oldest 

 British Palaeozoic groups. These he separates into the three follow- 

 ing Divisions : — 



I. Lower Palaeozoic Division, representing the Cambrian and Silu- 

 rian Series in ascending groups. To this is added a statement of the 

 same division as developed in the Cumbrian Mountains of the north 

 of England, giving — 1, the equivalent of the Cambrian Series, and 

 2, the equivalent of the Silurian Series. 



II. Middle Palaeozoic Division, representing the Devonian Series 

 or Old Red Sandstone, as developed — 1, in Herefordshire and South 

 Wales ; 2, in Devonshire and Cornwall ; and 3, in Scotland. 



III. Upper Palaeozoic Division, including the Carboniferous and 

 Permian rocks. 



It will hardly be necessary for me to observe, that in the first or 

 lowest of these divisions. Prof. Sedgwick altogether ignores the Lower 

 Silurian Series, and refers everything below his May Hill Sandstone 

 to the Cambrian Series, which he again subdivides into three groups ; 

 first, the Longmynd and Bangor group called Lower Cambrian ; 

 second, the Festiniog group called Middle Cambrian ; and third, the 

 Bala group or Upper Cambrian. In the course of the long and 

 elaborate Introduction, with its accompanying Supplement and Post- 

 script, the author enters fully into the arguments by which he 

 endeavours to justify this nomenclature, and which he has already 

 brought before this S(5ciety. I deeply regret the tone in which this 

 is done ; nor can I believe that any amount of difi^erence of opinion 

 on scientific nomenclature, 'even admitting that his prior claims had 

 been invaded by the author of ' Siluria,' could justify the use of such 

 language as the author has employed with regard to Sir Roderick Mur- 

 chison and others. But I am not called upon to discuss the question, 

 further than to observe, that altogether to ignore the existence of the 

 Lower Silurian System, adopted by the Ordnance Survey and by the 

 first geologists of the continent, seems to me to be doing violence to 

 an established nomenclature, and destroying those claims to priority 

 which have been so generally conceded to the author of the * Silurian 

 System.' It must not be forgotten, that so early as 1833 Sir R. 

 Murchison pointed out in the western parts of Shropshire and 

 Herefordshire the existence of those formations to which the term 

 Lower Silurian was applied in the year 1835, and that this term of 

 Lower Silurian has since been unhesitatingly applied by the Ordnance 

 Surveyors to the vast development of the same formations which 

 extend through the greater portion of the regions of North Wales, 

 while they reserve the term of Cambrian as applicable only to the 

 lowest members of the series. It would be a strange abuse of 

 nomenclature to attempt to change the name of a formation because 



