OF PARIS, 1900. 227 



The majority of the papers read at these sections differed in no 

 respect, either in subject or scope, from the papers usually read 

 before scientific societies. A few, however, were of more general 

 interest. But owing to the number of papers presented and the 

 comparatively small amount of time available, very little if any dis- 

 cussion was possible, and except in those instances in which printed 

 copies of the papers were provided, so that the facts brought forward 

 could be studied at leisure, it is questionable whether any useful scien- 

 tific result was obtained by the presentation of the various memoirs. 



The reports presen ted to the Congress by Committees appointed 

 by previous Congresses were of greater importance. Printed reports 

 were furnished by the different Committees on (1) Nomenclature of 

 rocks (Prof. Lacroix), (2) Stratigraphical nomenclature (Prof. Rene- 

 vier), (3) Glaciers (Prof. Richter), and (4) The foundation of an 

 international Journal of Petrography (Prof. Becke). The Commit- 

 tee for the most important undertaking in connection with past Geo- 

 logical Congresses, that of the Geological map of Europe, presented 

 a report of which printed copies were not available. It is to be 

 feared that the lamented death of M. Hauchecorne, by whom the 

 map was originally planned, and to whose energy its preparation has 

 been largely due, will still further delay the progress of the work 

 which has already been 19 years in hand. Copies of the other 

 reports are sent herewith. All are of interest, but none shows any 

 very important result. Perhaps the most valuable is that on the 

 nomenclature of rocks, giving an account of various propositions by 

 different penologists for reducing the number of terms applied to 

 the crystalline rocks, and for introducing a systematic nomenclature. 

 The report on stratigraphical classification contains a rechauffe q{ 

 various propositions discussed and in some instances rejected as 

 impracticable or unnecessary at earlier Congresses (e.g., our old 

 acquaintance the desinences homophones) together with one proposal, 

 which is of rather more modern date, but which is in some respects 

 one of the most objectionable hitherto made, — this is to use, instead 

 of upper, middle and lower, the prefixes Eo or Palaeo, Meso and Neo 



( 3 ) 



