468 International Geological Congress. 



Carboniferous represents also an enormous lapse of time. In 

 reply to the argument from the percentage of fossils common 

 to the Carboniferous and Permian, he observed that the number 

 of fossils, which are found in a given neighborhood depends 

 both upon the excellence of the geologists looking for them 

 and the assiduity of their search. The percentage of fossils 

 common to the Paleozoic and Mesozoic is increasing every day 

 in proportion to the hammering done. 



M. de Lapparent was of the opinion that the arguments for 

 establishing these stages should be pelagic traces rather than 

 geographic situations. He continued, that if we could restore 

 the geographical divisions of the world as thej r were at the time 

 when these various groups were laid down and the Carbonif- 

 erous and Permian did not present analogies which could be 

 made out, he (Lapparent) would acknowledge himself in error, 

 but the same argument could not be drawn from the present 

 geographic conditions of the earth. He would cite, however, 

 another argument, namely that from petrographic studies. There 

 was not to be found in the Permian a trace of certain rocks so 

 peculiar throughout the Carboniferous. All the outflows char- 

 acterizing the Carboniferous on the one hand and the Triassic on 

 the other were wanting in the Permian measures, where another 

 order of things from that preceding seemed to have supervened. 



Dr. Bey rich made some remarks. Another member of the 

 Congress, stated that the Rothliegendes must be separated from 

 the Carbonic and also from the Triassic. 



The Hon. President, von Dechen, said that the Rothliegendes 

 was a very remarkable group. It has the thickness in some 

 places of 1,600 meters, and even at this depth the bottom is not 

 found. Rothliegendes' and Zechstein occur over vast extents 

 of country. In Russia there are outcrops of it larger than 

 the whole of some countries existing in Europe. 



M. Blanford said : "In taking up this question we take up 

 one that concerns many parts of the world. Outside of Europe 

 there is no Permian — I mean no European Permian. It is im- 

 possible to separate the upper from the middle and lower Car- 

 boniferous. I believe that the fauna of the Zechstein is a local 

 fauna and therefore I give my adhesion to the views of M. 

 de Lapparent as to uniting the Permian and the Carboniferous." 



M. Capellini, rising with the report of the committee at 

 Zurich in his hands, remarked that there must be some mistake 

 in the printed report inasmuch as it was there stated that M. 

 Blanford was of the opinion that there was an evident division 

 between the Carboniferous and Permian. 



M. Blanford stated that the report was entirely correct and 

 that he would explain how the misunderstanding arose. He 

 was under the impression, during the discussion at Zurich, that 



