638 U. ETHERIDGH ON THE PALAEONTOLOGY OE THE 



characteristic. Hence it was apparently very difficult to decide as to 

 the age of the rocks. On the whole it appeared to him that the 

 existence of the Lower Silurian was proved, but he doubted whether 

 there was sufficient evidence for the Devonian. He thought the 

 deposits so designated were more likely to represent a marine stage 

 of the Ursa series. He called the attention of the Society to these 

 fossils as showing the existence of a temperate climate near the pole, 

 proving that the present condition of the polar regions, rather than 

 the Miocene one, was to be regarded as exceptional. 



Dr. Henet Woodward complimented Capt. Feilden on the series 

 of fossils that he had collected, and said that the specimens exhibited 

 formed only a part of them. With regard to Sir Leopold M'Clin- 

 tock's statements, he said that, notwithstanding his having been so 

 unfortunate as to be compelled to leave some behind him, he had 

 nevertheless succeeded in bringing home a valuable collection of 

 fossils, and so also had Sir John Richardson from the Mackenzie 

 River (of Miocene age). With regard to Mr. Blake's remarks, he 

 stated that in England Bronteus occurs in the Upper Silurian, so 

 that Mr. Etheridge might fairly attribute to the beds containing 

 that genus an Upper Silurian age. He was unable to offer any 

 opinion as to the other supposed Crustacean remains, as they were 

 excessively indistinct. 



Mr. Batterman stated that the gneiss seemed to him to correspond 

 with that of the upper part of the Lower Laurentian, the true upper 

 series, so rich in Labrador, being apparently wholly absent in these 

 Arctic regions. The shales provisionally called Huronian certainly 

 corresponded with some occurring in Canada ; but they presented no 

 signs of the hsematite there found, nor of the galena characteristic 

 of the Lower Silurian of Hudson's Bay. Hence, though there was 

 a general similarity to the Hudson's Bay rocks, there were, never- 

 theless, some important differences. 



Mr. Belt desired to draw attention to a hiatus in the geological 

 record contained in the rocks of the Arctic regions. The authors had 

 noticed the absence of Permian or Triassic deposits; but he did not 

 refer to that, but to a much more remarkable break, namely the 

 presumed absence of strata of Eocene age. In Central Europe in 

 Eocene times tropical plants abounded. Later on the tropical forms 

 disappeared and were replaced by the Miocene flora, containing 

 genera and species that betoken a more temperate climate. It 

 seemed to him, therefore, most likely that the supposed Miocene 

 plants really lived near and around the pole in Eocene times, and 

 migrated southward in the Miocene epoch, when the climate of the 

 Arctic regions became too cold for them. The presence of Miocene 

 species in the Arctic deposits no more proved that they lived there 

 in Miocene times than that of recent species, such as Pinus abies, P. 

 montana, and Taxoclium distichum, showed that they lived there in 

 recent times. The absence of an Eocene flora could not be explained 

 by supposing that the Arctic area was then submerged; for no Eocene 

 marine strata had been brought up by the great post-Tertiary eleva- 

 tions that had taken place. He would be glad to learn if the authors 



