366 W. E. Logan on the Rocks of the Quebec Group. 
Art. XXXI.—On the Rocks of the Quebec Group at Point Lévis, 
(being a letter to Mr. JoacHIM BARRANDE of France, from 
Sir Wini1AM E. Locan, Canadian Geological Survey.)' 
Montreal, 15th March, 1863, 
My Dear Me. Barranpe,—WMr. Jules Marcou has addressed 
to you a letter dated the 2d August, 1862, on the Taconic rocks 
of Vermont and Canada, in which he says, on page 10, “I was 
able this year to follow out and trace every bed and layer on 
the whole contour of Point Lévis, from the Grand Trunk Ter- 
minus to Indian Cove; and as Point Lévis is a point of land sur- 
rounded by high cliffs, I feel satisfied that there is no repetition 
of beds, and no synclinal axis; and that the few foldings of the 
strata at Ferry’s cliff are mere accident, confined to a distance of 
a few feet, and are without any effect upon the whole mass of 
strata, but are what we call in French structure ployée (contorted 
strata).” On page 14 he says: “ Fearing that my first unsuccess- 
ful attempt last year to understand the explanation of Messrs. 
Logan and Billings might be my own fault, I tried very hard 
this year again, when at Point Lévis, but with no better success, 
and I left the point, fully convinced that the fossils described by 
Mr. Billings, and the so-called outcrops, A?,A°,A‘, &c. of Mr. 
Logan, were collected and observed in a very careless way, with- 
out regard to stratigraphy, by irresponsible collectors, or by 
unskillful practical geologists.” 
ave neither time nor inclination for controversial geology. 
: on 
in Canada, or out of it, nor have I suggested any such criticisms 
to others; but a charge of carelessness on the purt of public of- 
ficers in the discharge of their duties appears to me, on the pre- 
sent occasion, to require a few words of reply, lest you and oth: 
ers might suppose the accusation to have some foundation. It is 
due to Mr. Marcou to give him credit for the very great care he : 
claims, as I am persuaded he would not have ventured so unre- 
servedly and condemnatory a contradiction of what has been 
stated on the part of the Survey, without having exhausted 4 
his skill on his own investigation. The only eritical cw 
therefore left me to make, is that this distinguished stratigraphist 
has been very unfortunate; and that having missed the maim — 
_ feature of the conspicuously marked structure he so carefully 
_ searched for, it is not surprising that he should find a difficulty 
in understanding a statement connected with it. 2 
expended by — 
In 1854 and 1856, a considerable time was 
chardson, one of my assistants, and myself, in ascertaining 
'* Communicated to this Journal by Sir Wa. E, Loaax. 
i Bs 
ue eege 
