International Geological Congress. 4:69 



v 

 the question was simply of European geology — and in the vote 

 that was taken he had no part. 



M. Stur made some observations on the course to be pur- 

 sued in treating these two formations. He believed in uniting 

 the Permian and Carboniferous in one system. 



M. Nikitin : " We have two regions in Russia, where we 

 have studied these groups. They are divided into two stages. 

 In central Russia, in the Yolga valley, we can distinguish them, 

 but at the foot of the mountains we cannot. We cannot 

 at the present time, therefore, define accurately the limits be- 

 tween these different systems, but no doubt in the future we 

 shall be able to do so. 



M. Renevier was glad to hear from M. Stur's remarks the 

 confirmation of views which he had always held and often ex- 

 pressed, namely : that the classification based on gaps is false 

 and artificial. I agree with M. Nikitin, that our groups are all 

 artificial. (Dissenting murmurs). Oswald Heer calls the Per- 

 mian Upper Carboniferous by its flora. And as to the fauna 

 he has shown a great number of species that are similar. M. 

 Gaudry has done the same for the reptiles ; M. Fritsch's views 

 tend in the same direction. The divisions ought to be made 

 on paleontological evidence. 



Professor Newberry remarked that he knew it was a question 

 here of the European map, and perhaps it would be an imperti- 

 nence on the part of an American to express any opinion ; "but 

 I am asked," he continued "to express the opinion of my 

 honored colleague Professor Hal], that there is no Permian in 

 America. From my own studies also I know, that there is an 

 insensible transition from the Carboniferous beds, to those which 

 correspond in position to the Permian, and there is no strict 

 line of demarcation between the Trias and the Permian. There- 

 fore, for America (and only for America I speak), the Permian 

 as a separate division does not exist." 



M. Capellini : " The president asked me to see what can be 

 done to advance the map, and although it appears to me that a 

 majority of those present is in favor of joining the Permian and 

 Carboniferous, still there is a respectable number of those who 

 are opposed to it. And therefore the commission on the 

 map would propose to adjourn the discussion and definite set- 

 tlement of this question until a future time. 



M. Topley said: " M. Blanford speaks only in general terms 

 and not for England in the matter of these groups. It is 

 highly important, as well for the classification as for the eco- 

 nomic geology of England, to preserve the identity of each 

 system. He agreed with Professor Hughes in drawing a strong 

 line of demarcation between the Permian and the Carbonif- 

 erous. 



