COASTS VISITED BY THE ARCTIC EXPEDITION. 639 



could give any more probable explanation of the supposed absence 

 of Eocene strata than that he had suggested. 



Mr. J. S. Gardner did not believe the beds were Miocene, and 

 called attention to the fact that many Miocene plants are common to 

 the Eocene, as was shown by the American beds. 



Capt. Eeildest, in reply to the Duke of Argyll, said that they had 

 noticed the Petermann ice-cap because it was so different from the 

 ordinary one, and had been fully described in the Blue Book. 



Mr. De Pance, in reply to Mr. Belt, said that the Austrian geolo- 

 gists had identified Lias and, he believed, Trias in Spitzbergen. He 

 thought that the presence of an Eocene flora followed by a Miocene 

 one was rather opposed to Mr. Belt's idea of the real Eocene age of 

 the supposed Miocenes of the Polar regions. 



Mr. Etkeridge said that he had been obliged to use negative evi- 

 dence because it was the best there was. He could not agree with 

 Prof. Ramsay as to the absence of fjords. At present there are 

 plenty of Lamellibranchs near the pole, but now there are plenty 

 of shores on which they can live. They were not here in these 

 early times at any rate ; though many fossils had been brought, no 

 Lamellibranchs had been found among them. He would take into 

 consideration Prof. Jones's remarks. He thought he was justified 

 in referring the rocks with Bronteusjlabellifer to the Silurian, though 

 in Britain it is a Devonian form. 



Q. J. G. S. No. 135. 2 u 



