376 E. Billings on the claim of Priority, &c. | 
have assured me that Prof. Hall never gave them the least hint 
that the fossils proved a more ancient horizon than that indi- — 
cated by the apparent attitude of the strata, but on the contrary 
—. i _ them as characteristic of the Hudson River 
rfect was their confidence in ~~ soundness 
ontreal, March 11th, 1862. 
* The fossils alluded to here are those of the slates at Bald Mountain in New 
York published as Hud —. River in the 1st vol. of the Pal. N, Y. in 1847, and also 
those of the Georgia sla wot Mai els Prof. H. never mentione iomocephar 
lites to the Canadian arvely The whole question has always rested on Legions 
rectness of the determi redid net the first of these, which are the origin: Taconic 
which Emmons depe P a n corr 
to these, then all the Physical Geologists who sided with him would have 
as to the e age of the Sandrock. The formation would be about the age 
Sandstone. In fact he could not call the Red Sandrock Potsdam wi 
ing in the most positive manner his own views as published in his first volume. 
course the Seca Geologists were well aware o mmons opinions but mating 
could e their confidence in Prof. Hall. Even after the primordial aspects of sth 
es lobites were pointed out, and for several months after po discovery 
Quebec fossils, they were wey unwil ing, as I know from 
believe an he could be wrong, especially as the physical apache re seemed ee oo 
firm his views in the most remarkable manner. 
