460 International Geological Congress. 



This was acted upon section by section. Section 1 was 

 adopted without dissent. Section 2 was then read. 



Professor Hughes (Cambridge), objected strongly. He said 

 the discordance between the two formations in England was 

 enormous and that the English geologists would never consent 

 to this union. 



" Professor Dewalque (Belgium), defended the proposal of the 

 committee. 



M. Hauchecorne (Germany), urged that the gray chosen by 

 the committee for the Permian was a greenish gray very differ- 

 ent from that of the Carboniferous, and he believed that if 

 Professor Hughes would look at the chart as made, he would 

 find that all the distinction he desired was accomplished by 

 this tint. His view was that a distinction of two entirely differ- 

 ent tints of the same general color base would effect as com- 

 plete a representation of the difference. between the two series 

 as could be effected by totally different colors. 



M. Nikitin (Eussia), thought the Carboniferous ought not 

 and could, not be joined to the Permian, and discussed the case 

 of the so-called transition beds in Nebraska and elsewhere in 

 illustration of the view. 



Professor Renevier (Switzerland), thought the Culm, Carbon- 

 iferous and Permian really constitute one system, but in order 

 not to prejudge the case he had invented the term "Carbonic." 

 Section 2 was then adopted. It was voted that the Carbonif- 

 erous and Permian be colored in different tints of gray. 



M. Dewalque (Belgium), objected to the use of the term 

 Silurian in the following (4th) section, on the ground that the 

 question of the limitation of the Silurian was to be brought up 

 hereafter. 



M. Renevier said he had used the term " Silurique " in order 

 not to bring up the Silurian question, and moreover, he had 

 said "Silurique, Cambrian included." He called the attention 

 of M. Dewalque to the fact that it was impossible for him to 

 discuss things without applying to them names, but that he did 

 so in a manner that he thought would commit the committee 

 and Congress in the least possible degree. 



Professor Hughes energetically protested against the use of 

 the word "Silurique." He had not found the Cambrian in the 

 region of the Silures. 



M. Jacquot (France) allied himself warmly with Professor 

 Hughes in protesting against the use of the term Silurique, at 

 least for the measures in France. One can recognize distinctly 

 the difference between the Silurian and Cambrian in every part 

 of the extended contact in his country, in the Pyrenees and in 

 various other places they are never to be confounded. 



Professor Renevier said, it is not a question of confounding 



