Vol. 50. j anniversary Address of the president; i^o. 



Upper Archaaan, the latter being represented by the Jersey rhyolites 

 and Boulay Bay rocks, which may have their analogues in the 

 Uriconian of the West Midlands, and possibly in the Arvonian or 

 Pebidian of Wales. But the chief interest centres in the basic 

 schistose rocks, underlying these, which belong to the Lower, or, as 

 some would say, to the xirchaean proper, and whose origin is now 

 universally admitted to be igneous. They lie amongst the very 

 lowest ' foundation-stones ' of the Earth's crust, whilst the peculiar 

 structures exhibited by them, and, above all, their markedly basic 

 character, cannot fail to provoke speculation as to the physical con- 

 ditions under which they originated. It is not at all likely that 

 we have heard the last word about the rocks of the Lizard and of 

 Sark. 



Where there is so much to choose from, my difficulty has ever 

 been to keep the Address within reasonable limits, and this must be 

 my apology for many omissions. It would, for instance, have been 

 very interesting to follow Prof. Bonney in his studies of the crys- 

 talline rocks of the Alps — the more so as these papers of his 

 embrace a subject provocative of widely different views. The 

 Society has likewise been indebted to Mr. Rutley for many beauti- 

 fully illustrated papers, and we have had other excellent petro- 

 logical work from such well-known authors as Prof. Cole and 

 Dr. Hatch, not to mention contributions by Captain Hutton, Prof. 

 Ulrich, Mr. 0. A. Derby, Dr. Johnston-Lavis, Mr. Emmons, and 

 other writers who have dealt with foreign petrology. 



On the other hand, I must apologize to the Society for the length 

 of the Address, or rather of the two Addresses, in which I have 

 endeavoured to remind the Fellows of what they have been doing 

 and thinking about during the last few years. You will readily 

 believe that my object has not been to provide a synopsis of geo- 

 logical information, but rather to demonstrate the lines on which the 

 work of the Society has been conducted within the limited period. 

 Moreover, the scope of this second Address especially has been retro- 

 spective rather than critical, although I have not scrupled at times 

 to add a few remarks, somewhat after the fashion of the Greek 

 Chorus, to the contentions of the respective authors. The Geological 

 Society, as we have seen, is still a pugnacious body, though the 

 matters over which it fights are, perhaps, less understanded of the 

 People than was formerly the case, and for the same reason may 

 possibly attract less general interest, although the work is none the 



