462 International Geological Congress. 



upon the chart of Europe. Afterwards they would listen to 

 lectures upon special subjects : M. Graudry upon certain rep- 

 tiles, and Dr. Newberry (of New York), on a new fish from 

 the Devonian. 



The Secretar}^ further announced the gifts which had been 

 presented to the Congress. 



M. Dewalque began the reading of the report of the com- 

 mittee upon uniformity of nomenclature at p. 13 : A. Archasan 

 System, Nos. 1, 2 and 3. " The first question to settle is, 

 whether it should be included under the Paleozoic. . The nega- 

 tive of this does not seem doubtful. Consequently and in con- 

 formity with the proposition of the French report, we propose 

 to the Congress to decide that this system shall form a group 

 to be known as the Primitive group. The termination of the 

 word primitive will recall the characters which distinguish it 

 from the groups ' primary, secondary,'''' 1 &c. 



M. Blanford proposed that we ^postpone the question of 

 forming such a group till a later occasion. 



Professor Hughes did not think that we had found the 

 bottom of this group, and therefore we should wait for the 

 determination of the term to be used, whether group or system. 

 •He called attention to an error in the report by which it would 

 seem that the English committee prefers the term Pre-Cam- 

 brian. The English prefer the term Archaean to Pre- Cambrian^ 

 and they have used the former term. 



M. Dewalque said if this group be not accepted, it must 

 belong to the Paleozoic. [Loud objections.] Mr. Dewalque 

 replied there was no way of avoiding the dilemma. 



Professor Hughes thought we might represent it as a part of 

 an unfinished system, but not as a system or a group. 



M. de Lapparent (France) said if the Congress is willing to 

 decide that there are no fossils in the Archaean, it should be set 

 apart ; if it contain fossils it must be joined to the Paleozoic. 



M. Renevier proposed the term Terrain to avoid pre-judg- 

 ing the question of the rank in the classification of these rocks. 

 He objected to the use of this term in any systematic sense, but 

 believed it might be employed in a general sense. 



Dr. von Dechen said, we want the terms "group" and "sys- 

 tem" used for the chart, and do not want any vague terms. 

 He believed it was necessary to maintain the usage of terms 

 adopted by the Congress at Bologna. 



Professor Hughes suggested that the use of the term group, 

 for the Archaean be adopted, without settling its subdivision 

 into systems, or attempting any correlation between subdivis- 

 ions in different countries.. 



M. Eenevier replied that we do not apply to eruptive rocks, 

 the words "group " or "system," but simply "rocks." If erup- 



