194 J.P. Lesley on the Coal-measures of Cape Breton. 
Scotia, and that too midway between the great coal areas of 
America and those of Europe, wherein the thickness of Coal- 
measures proper range from 2000 to 5000 feet, if they even 
attain the latter size, there should be an anomalous deposit of 
25,000 feet, is incredible." What the great Bohemian paleon- 
tologist, by unerring instinct, said to us after our thirty years’ 
war over the Taconic system, there must be a mistake somewhere, 
I must repeat to those who so “enormously develop” the Nova 
Scotia Coal-measures. And my intention in the paper on Nova 
Scotia coal was only to suggest one formula on which the error 
might be discussed. I ra id repudiated the safety of insti- 
tuting “minute ate amia par: My comparison of the Cape 
can be vias tend in 2 “tet of Coal-measures in Rene 
hope at the bottom of the box. es peo nat nade 
the study of the slack-heap at the mine’s mouth, our own 
identification she individual beds was very imperfect, and the 
search for a complete system of identification had been aban- 
doned with ee same sense of hopelessness. But how is it now? 
val weed against 1 
have no doubt that some oe the Coal-measures of the British 
Previntes may have been “ sited in more or less separa ted 
areas on the sides of the Soxcenn and Silurian hills,” as Dr. i 
nib says (2). But I confess to a complete scepti ticism of | ; 
ability of the Coal-measures A oes the lower res frets se : 
cau - ‘ 
ia > eave. Pometved s Mots te from Dr. Dawson, written sh ie wks 
above remarks of Prof. Lesley, in which he says he never Saimed any such | 
Sets ss 25,000 feat fr the Coal-measures proper of Nova Scotia, but that 
the truly “thickness of nearly foots ancl tbat oe ae 
enormous 10,000 cot, and that it is to 
remarks apply. See Dawson's eee and 177.-—Eps. 
