80 Scientific Intelligence. 



plates vi-xviii. Ottawa, 1901. — The paleontologic and literary- 

 part of this report leave nothing to be desired, and the drawings 

 are admirable portrayals of the characteristics of the species 

 drawn by the author and thus having all the value of scientific 

 definition. A few notes regarding correlation are of importance. 

 It is suggested by Dr. Whiteaves that " American stringoceph- 

 alus zone " be applied to the Manitoba horizon to avoid confusion 

 with the European zone of that genus (p. 104). Attention is 

 called (p. 124) to Billings' identification of the Gaspe limestone, 

 No. 8 of Indian Cove, Gaspe, " as nearly of the age of the 

 Oriskany sandstone." The application of " Lower Helderberg " 

 to the fauna of L'Anse a la Barbe, Baie des Chaleurs, Que., is 

 commented on ; the opinion of Dr. Whiteaves cited that the 

 limestone seems to be most nearly equivalent to the Guelph 

 formation of Ontario, Ohio and Wisconsin (see foot-note, p. 129), 

 and the remark is made that the term Lower Helderberg has 

 been used in part I of this volume, " in a sense as comprehensive 

 as that evidently implied by the term in the ' Geology of 

 Canada.' " This comprehensive use of the term should be con- 

 sidered in reading the review of the writer on the first volume. 

 (See this Journal, ix, p. 155, 1900.) h. s. w. 



5. The structural relations of the Amygdaloidal Melaphyre in 

 Broohline^ Newton and Brighton, Mass. ; by Henry T. Burr. 

 Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. at Harvard College, Vol. 38, Geol. series, 

 Vol. V, No. 2. — This paper once more brings to our notice the 

 dispute regarding the structural relations of the melaphyres of 

 the Boston Basin and the associated sedimentary rocks. Mr. Burr 

 concludes, from observations made in the field, that, for the area 

 studied, the beds of melaphyre are strictly intrusive in character; 

 and in so doing he takes very decided and pointed exception to 

 the views of Prof. W. O. Crosby, who, as is well known, considers 

 the main beds, at least, to be unquestionably contemporaneous 

 flows. The facts upon which Mr. Burr bases his main conclusions 

 are: " 1. The conglomerate associated with the melaphyre con- 

 tains no fragments of it. 2. The contacts, wherever found, are 

 igneous in character. 3. The melaphyre is seen in contact with 

 sediments varying from the coarsest of the conglomerate to the 

 finest of the slate. 4. The distribution of the melaphyre shows it 

 to be discordant with the structure of the sediments under any 

 interpretation of the latter that has been offered." In the May 

 number of the American Geologist, Prof. Crosby has taken occa- 

 sion to call into question some of Mr. Burr's statements and con- 

 clusions and to present again the arguments in favor of the con- 

 temporaneous character of the melaphyre. He calls attention to 

 the fact that, contrary to Mr. Burr's statement, fragments of 

 melaphyre are found in the overlying conglomerate; and shows, 

 we think, very clearly, that, so far as the character of the con- 

 tacts and the other relations to the associated sedimentaries are 

 concerned, the melaphyres are as well considered contemporane- 

 ous as intrusive sheets. He points out that the main melaphyre 



