ANNIVERSARY ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT. 5 1 



Xotcs on the vicinitj' of the upper part of Loch Maree." The author, 

 after emphasizing certain stratigraphical difficulties to which atten- 

 tion had been called at the reading of the last-named paper, expressed 

 his opinion, founded on microscopic study, that the flaggy beds, 

 regarded as unaltered Lower Silurian by Dr. Hicks, were rightly 

 called metamorphic and were true schists, although very different in 

 character from the admitted Hebridean rocks ; he stated also that he 

 had been unable to recognize any distinction between a newer and 

 an older series in Glen Docherty, the former appearing to pass on 

 from its escarpment at the upper end of Loch llaree towards Ben 

 Eyn, although certainly the rock became more highly metamorphosed 

 in this direction. The author accordingly contended that Dr. Hicks 

 had failed to make good his criticism against the Murchisonian 

 hypothesis. He asserted, however, that previous observers were in 

 error in supposing the " syenite " of Glen Logan to be an intrusive 

 mass of igneous rock, and maintained, on stratigraphical and petrolo- 

 gical evidence, that it was simply a portion of the Hebridean floor 

 brought up into its present position by faults *. 



The controversy was now transferred to the pages of the ' Geo- 

 logical Magazine.' Dr. Hicks obtained the valuable aid of Mr. T. 

 Davies to examine his specimens microscopically, and published a 

 series of papers in the volume for 1880 (vol. vii. dec. 2). In these 

 he maintains the general accuracy of his former views, insisting 

 much on the identity of the Ben Fyn schists with those of admittedly 

 Hebridean age at Gairloch; a point which, though obviously of 

 primary importance in the argument, had unaccountably in his 

 former paper been passed over almost in silence. He also admitted 

 that the so-called syenite of Glen Logan was not intrusive in the 

 Lower Silurian strata, though he still regarded it as an igneous rock, 

 but of Pre-Cambrian age, and he modifled the section, which had been 

 most open to criticism, so as to weaken the main objections. To these 

 papers his critic briefly replied, commenting upon what appeared to 

 him the weak points of the defence, and expressing more clearly his 

 own position in the following words, " It is possible there may be 

 very much Pre-Cambrian rock in the Scotch Highlands ; my con- 

 tention is that Dr. Hicks's proof of this is erroneous." 



Another paper was read by Dr. Hicks before our Society upon the 

 age of the Scotch Highlands, which, however, was subsequently 

 withdrawn by the author, so that only a short abstract appears in 

 the volume for 1880 ; but I believe the substance of it was after- 

 wards embodied by him in an address to the Geologists' Association. 

 In this Dr. Hicks deals with the district for a considerable distance 

 on either side of Loch Liunhe, Loch Eil, and the S.W. end of the 

 Caledonian Canal. He shows that here also a great series of rocks 

 occur corresponding with those of Hebridean type, both as asserted 

 by himself and as admitted by his opponents, with which are in- 

 folded both a schistose series, which he is disposed to correlate with 



* The possibility of part of this being gneiss bad already been suggested 

 (without the knowledge of the writer of the above paper) by Mr. Hudleston 

 in his communication to the Geologists' Association. 



