144 Discussion on Mr. BalPs paper. [June, 



He regretted the more having omitted to quote the " en passanf^ 

 notices o£ pot-holes in the Survey Memoirs, as they gave to Mr. Ball the 

 occasion for his remarks, in which, however, that gentleman has not added 

 any explanation on the subject, but on the contrary has treated it quite as 

 a personal affair. 



While admitting that he had been ignorant of four or five mentions 

 of pot-holes, he imagined that Mr. Ball was unacquainted with a much 

 larger series of papers treating on this subject, which he would therefore 

 recommend to his consideration (Dr. Feistmantel read a list of these papers). 

 They all show that pot-holes were considered ivortli description from long 

 ago up to the present date, although they are so common ; even the most 

 common phenomena must be described in order to be known. 



Therefore, Dr. Feistmantel said, his principle would always be to 

 examine all phenomena, even if they he very common, as circumstances 

 may often make them become very important, as an instance of which he 

 might mention the re-discovery of Glossopteris, thought by some authors 

 palaeozoic, in the Keuperic Panchet group, and the discovery of it in the 

 Middle Jurassic Jabalpur group, on which he would have something to 

 say on a future occasion. 



Mr. H. F. Blais^foed drew attention to the report of Dr. Feist- 

 mantel's remarks in the March Proceedings of the Society, and especially 

 the following passage " Dr. Feistmantel said he very much doubted whether 

 Mr. H. F. Blanford's statements that these pot-holes are exceedingly com- 

 mon, is correct ; otherwise they would have been more frequently noticed 

 and described." Dr. Feistmantel's industry in collecting the very long 

 list of papers on the subject, only a portion of which time would allow of 

 his even enumerating by their titles, had now afforded the most complete 

 refutation of the grounds of his opinion above given, that could possibly be 

 desired ; and, as regards India, Mr. Ball's paper just read, would probably 

 be thought equally conclusive. In his own remarks, to which Dr. Feist- 

 mantel had taken objection, he had however spoken only of the results of 

 his personal experience. In North Wales, where he had done his earliest 

 work in field geology, pot-holes were exceedingly common ; in Cornwall, 

 where his next work was done, they were also very common ; and in every 

 part of India in which it had been his fortune to work at field geology, 

 the same rule held good. 



It is then amply established that in Europe, as in India, pot-holes in 

 streams are so common, that it is rather a matter for surprise that there is 

 such an extensive literature on the subject as Dr. Feistmantel has adduced. 

 In part, this is perhaps due to the somewhat undue attention given to 

 minutiae in certain schools of Geology. He had accompanied one of the 

 writers quoted by Dr. Feistmantel, in geological excursions with his class, 



