'214 SIR ARCHIBALD GEIKTE ON THE BASIC AND [May 1 894, 



an exceedingly distasteful task to indicate all the points in regard 

 to which I thought him to be in error. But it was impossible to 

 avoid reference to the more important of them where general prin- 

 ciples or important deductions were at stake. The indication of my 

 dissent from his views was done as lightly as possible ; I referred 

 to his writings more frequently when I could do so in agreement 

 with him than where I differed from him, and I feel confident that 

 no one who had not previously made himself master of the subject 

 would ever imagine from reading my memoir that the differences 

 of opinion between us were so profound as they really are. 



As my memoir was based on detailed observations over the whole 

 volcanic region, prolonged through a series of years, during which I 

 repeatedly re-examined some parts of the ground, any adequate 

 criticism of it could only be founded on a careful study of some of 

 the numerous sections cited by me. Without waiting, however, for 

 the opportunity of testing the value of my deductions by an exami- 

 nation of the field-evidence from which they were drawn, Prof. 

 Judd at the beginning of 1889 communicated a general criticism of 

 my paper to this Society. 1 In the discussion which followed the 

 reading of his paper I briefly replied. But, as it appeared to me 

 that no valid arguments had been adduced by him against either 

 my facts or my conclusions, I refrained from entering into further 

 controversy. 



In a subsequent paper, on ' The Propylites of the Western Isles 

 of Scotland,' Prof. Judd affirmed that " the great cause of the 

 conflict of opinion between us concerning the relations of the igneous 

 masses of the Western Isles of Scotland is to be found in the different 

 interpretation we place on these propylitic rocks." 2 Though this 

 statement appeared to me to convey a very erroneous representation 

 of the actual difference of opinion, I declined to make any reply. 

 The main fundamental facts of geological histor}' on which we dif- 

 fered remained quite clearly defined, and, in spite of the array of 

 petrographieal learning brought forward by him, he seemed to me 

 to leave my version of the true sequence of events in the volcanic 

 history absolutely as it was. Disliking controversy so thoroughly 

 as I do, I even refrained from replying to what I regarded as mis- 

 conceptions or misstatements of my views, being content to abide 

 the verdict of competent geologists, who would doubtless review the 

 evidence on the ground. 



My critic has now returned a third time to the attack in the paper 

 which he read to the Society on the 25th of January, 1893. 3 He 

 therein brought forward some observations made by him among the 

 Cuillin Hills of Skye, which he contended finally established the cor- 

 rectness of his opinion that the granitic protrusions of the Tertiary 

 volcanic series are older than the gabbros. Instead of trying, how- 

 ever, to rebut the mass of cumulative proof drawn by me from all parts 

 of the volcanic area, that the granitic bosses are younger than the 

 other rocks because they break through them and send veins into 



1 Quart. Journ. G-eol. Soc. vol. xlv. p. 187. 



2 Op. cit. vol. xlvi. (1890) p. 353. 3 Op. cit. vol. xlix. p. 175. 



