

Yol. 67.] THE GEOLOGY OF CYRENAICA. 575- 



elusions of Sir R. Lambert Playfair, who, iu his Presidential Address 

 to the Geographical Section of the British Association in 1890, 

 accepted Cyrenaica (from geographical considerations) as a detached 

 fragment of the Atlas Mountains. 



'The Atlas range'..., be states, ' runs ... through Algeria and Tunisia; it 

 becomes interrupted in Tripoli, and it ends in the beautiful green hills of the 

 Cyrenaica, which must not be confounded -with the oases of the Sahara, but is 

 an island detached from the eastern spurs of the Atlas, in the ocean of the 

 desert.' (' The Mediterranean, Physical & Historical ' p. 875.) 



This view, however, has not received any recent support, 1 and 

 Cyrenaica has been generally regarded as a plateau of Kainozoic 

 rocks. Thus Taramelli & Bellio, on their geological map of Africa, 2 

 represent Cyrenaica as composed wholly of Eocene and Oligocene 

 formations ; they refer to the country as having been separated 

 from the older rocks of the Sahara by a Pleistocene sea, some of 

 the evidence for which they regard, however, as doubtful. 



The occurrence of Eocene rocks in Cyrenaica appeared probable 

 from the identification of nummulites in them. Thus, the Archduke 

 Salvator 3 described the walls of the Cave of Lethe as composed of 

 ' Xummulitenkalk.' Dr. Hildebrand 4 quotes a statement by Haimann 

 (' Cirenaica ' 1886) that the mountains of Cyrenaica are formed of 

 an Eocene limestone full of nummulites. Hildebrand nevertheless 

 rejected the reported nummulites and Eocene beds as based on 

 unerliable evidence 5 ; and, in regard to the rock at the ' River * 

 Lethe, his scepticism was justified, for it contains Orbitoides and 

 not nummulites. He expressed himself in doubt whether the 

 sandstones reported along the coast of Cyrenaica are the outcrop 

 of an Eocene base of the country, or whether, as he thought more- 

 probable, they are a Pliocene or ' Quaternary' series deposited upon 

 the flanks of the Miocene limestone (op. cit. p. 86). Hildebrand 

 was quite correct in his view as to the recent age of the low-level 

 sandstones ; but, despite his remarkably thorough acquaintance 



1 It is, however, consistent with some recent topographical maps, as, for ex- 

 ample, C.Diercke, 'Europa. Bodenverhaltnisse ' Schulwandkarten, 1:3,000,000, 

 Brunswick. 



2 T. Taramelli & V. Bellio, ' Geografia & Geologia dell' Africa ' Milan, 1890,. 

 pi. ii. 



3 [Ludwig-Salvator] ' Yacht-Reise in den Syrten, 1873' Prag, 1874, p. 52. 

 Reprinted as ' Eine Yachtreise an den Kiisten von Tripolitanien & Tunisien/ 

 Woerl's Reisebibliothek, Wurzburg, 1890, p. 49. 



4 G-. Hildebrand, ' Cyrenai'ka als Gebiet khnftiger Besiedelung' Bonn, 1904, 

 p. 83. 



5 ' These two records' — those of Haimann and the Archduke — 'are therefore 

 for us especially important,' says Hildebrand (' Cyrenai'ka ' 1904, pp. 83-84), 

 ' because they are in direct opposition to all others that we know. Eor there 

 is scarcely any mention of nummulites, which would certainly point to an old 

 Tertiary formation, and still less of formations of the Eocene time. These state- 

 ments as to age stand quite alone. Besides, they inspire no special confidence. 

 Haimann was neither geographer nor geologist, as may be recognized " Schritt 

 und Tritt." And the Archduke Salrator also makes no claim to geological 

 knowledge.' 



