G. K. Gilbert — Congress of Geologists. 431 



States the honor of the fifth meeting. The original com- 

 mittee of the association has been continued, with some 

 change of membership, and has sent representatives to each 

 session of the congress. 



The work of the congress, as originally conceived and as sub- 

 sequently undertaken, has for its scope geologic nomenclature 

 and classification, and the conventions of geologic maps. The 

 particular classifications attempted are the establishment of the 

 major divisions used in historic and stratigraphic geology and 

 the subdivision of volcanic rocks. In nomenclature three tilings 

 are undertaken : first, the determination of the names of historic 

 and stratigraphic divisions ; second, the formulation of rules for 

 nomenclature in paleontology and mineralogy; and third, the 

 establishment and definition of the taxonomic terms of chro- 

 nology (period, epoch, etc.), and of stratigraphy (system, series, 

 etc.) Tbe map conventions most discussed are colors, but all 

 signs for the graphic indication of geologic data are considered. 

 The congress has also undertaken the preparation of a large 

 map of Europe, to be printed in forty-nine sheets. 



The work was for the most part planned at the Paris meeting, 

 and committees were appointed to formulate subjects for action 

 by the congress at subsequent sessions. Briefly stated, the work 

 accomplished to the present time is as follows: Agreement has 

 been reached as to the rank and equivalence of the taxonomic 

 terms employed in chronology and stratigraphy, a set of rules 

 for paleontologic nomenclature has been adopted, and many 

 sheets of the map of Europe have been prepared for the en- 

 graver. A partial classification of stratified rocks has been 

 agreed to and also a partial scheme of map colors, but the re- 

 ports of proceedings indicate that action in these matters is 

 tentative rather than final. 



It is understood that both of these subjects will have prom- 

 inent place in the proceedings at the London meeting, and the 

 American committee is endeavoring to prepare itself for repre- 

 sentative action at that meeting by ascertaining the opinions of 

 all American geologists on the various subjects. It has ;isked 

 this Section to set apart a day for the discussion of some of the 

 more important questions, and it can hardly be doubted that 

 the Section will realize the mutual advantage of thus assigning 

 the time requested.* I am personally so impressed with the im- 



Committee, under the direction of Persifor Frazer, Docteur des sciences naturelles 

 (Univ. de. France), Secretary. 1886;" pp. 109, 8°; and its work is summarized 

 in "Resultants scientifiques du Congres geologique international dc Berlin et des Ira- 

 voux qui s'y rattachent, par E. Renevier, prof.; " pp. 22, 8°, in Bull. Soc. Vaudoise 

 Sci. Nat., vol. xxii, No. 94. 



* A day was assigned, as requested. The Section listened to a report by the 

 secretary of the committee, Dr. Frazer, and began to discuss it point by point, 

 but adjourned without great progress. A resolution was passed approving the 

 work of the Committee. 



