THE HAWKESBURY SANDSTONE. 91 
Discussion. 
Mr. Witxrnson, Government Geologist, read his paper in reply, 
as follows :—I feel it incumbent upon me to offer a few remarks 
upon the able and interesting paper which has been read, because 
in it Mr. Tenison-Woods has put before us a theory not only 
to the views entertained by all previous observers as to 
the aqueous origin of the Hawkesbury sandstones, but also to the 
supposed evidence which I had the honor of bringing under the 
notice of this Society, of ice action having been concerned in the 
deposition of these rocks. 
I am sure Mr. Tenison-Woods is desirous that we should 
freely express our views upon this very interesting question, for 
se gave me a copy of his paper several days before 1t was 
of the paper, but I must take exception to the theory he now 
as happily given us a case in oint, where Darwin’s theory as 
to the formation of the Hawkesbury rocks has been proved faulty, 
I venture to be a little presumptuous, and say that my friend’s 
ry may be at fault also. ? 
Mr. Tenison-Woods thus summarizes the result of his essay :— 
“1. That the Hawkesbury sandstone is a wind-blown formation, 
interspersed with lagoons and morasses, with impure peat. I 
do not question the possibility of blown sand deposits occupying 8s 
extensive or even a larger area than that of the Hawkesbury 
gong ation. For instance, even in the Herbert and Diamantina 
district, beyond Cooper’s Creek, there is a vast area, several 
