International Geological Congress. 467 



clature was then proceeded with by M. Dewalque at p. 15. 

 D. the Carboniferous System. 



M. de Lapparent took the floor and supported the proposition 

 of the committee to unite the Permian with the Carboniferous. 

 His ground was that every classification should base its horizons 

 upon established fauna. Most happily for the geologists, in the 

 earlier formations there is the most valuable evolution of the 

 Cephalopods ; but it was not thus with the Permian, as he 

 appealed to the paleontologists who had occupied themselves 

 with these beds to declare. Among other arguments presented, 

 he remarked that in Asia, there was no Pelagic fauna, by means 

 of which one could distinguish the Carboniferous and the 

 Permian, and the same was true in other countries of which 

 there were representatives present. He concluded, "I believe 

 that in establishing the Permian as a unit we construct some- 

 thing which has nothing in common with the characters adopted 

 for other sub-divisions ; which has no distinctive characters of 

 its own; and which in fact does not exist. Whereas united 

 to the Carboniferous we have two distinct horizons of faunas, 

 each of which is susceptible of further subdivision by pro- 

 nounced differences in character. Dr. Bey rich made some ob- 

 servations. Mr. Jacquot thought that Mr. Dewalque should 

 read to the Congress the opinions that had been expressed by 

 the different national committees. This would have, in his view, 

 the most capital importance in deciding the question. Mr. 

 Dewalque conformably to the request of the last speaker, called 

 first upon the French committee. 



M. Lapparent did not think that his opinion should be 

 brought into conflict with that of the French committee, to 

 which as a member his name was attached. 



M. Eenevier spoke on this question. 



M. Choffat, in the course of his remarks, insisted that the 

 question of the thickness of measures was an entirely insignifi- 

 cant one. 



M. Capellini read the report of the French Committee and 

 observed that M. Lapparent may very well present his own 

 views in the Congress, even though they be different from those 

 of the committee. 



Prof. Hughes exhibited a chart of a section made by himself : 

 there was a large gap between the Permian and the Carbonif- 

 erous; still the amount of time to be ascribed to that gap is differ- 

 ent in different places, and no doubt if the contact line could be 

 every where examined, places would be found where the two sys- 

 tems would approach each other very nearly. As at the base of 

 the Carboniferous also, there is an enormous break of at least 

 27,000 feet of measures that had been eroded before the present 

 discordant contact was effected. That between the Permian and 



