1887] The Taconic Question Restated. 121 
told that portions of this same belt belong to the Loraine sub- 
division and the succeeding Gray sandstone, and that these last 
rocks are represented by the sandstones of Burlington and Col- 
chester, Vermont, and also by those used in the fortifications of 
the city of Quebec. This whole Graywacke belt, as traced out 
by Eaton, is thus here referred, in accordance with the view of 
Mather, to the horizon of the Second Graywacke. 
In another place in this same volume we find a discussion of 
the relations of the Transition or Sparry Lime-rock of Eaton to 
the Primitive Lime-rock, which in some sections apparently over- 
lies it to the eastward, in which it is suggested that the latter 
may be younger rather than older than the Sparry Lime-rock.* 
This argument has lately been cited by J. D. Dana against the 
views maintained by Emmons in other chapters of the same 
volume, in which are set forth the teachings of Eaton that the 
Primitive Quartz-rock, the Primitive Lime-rock, and the Tran- 
sition Argillite are, contrary to the hypothesis of Mather, inferior 
not only to the Trenton limestone, but to the whole New York 
_ palzozoic system, and are, moreover, directly overlaid by the 
Graywacke series in question, which is in turn succeeded by 
the Sparry Lime-rock. The whole of these, from the base of the 
Primitive Quartz-rock, are described in detail by Emmons in his 
volume of 1842, in chapters vii., viii., and ix., as belonging to a 
distinct system, for which the name of the Taconic system was 
then proposed. This Report of Emmons can thus be quoted 
against himself, as has been done by his opponents, for the pas- 
sages already cited, which are introduced in other parts of the 
same volume, set forth the wholly opposed views of Mather as 
to the rocks in question. The secret history of these curious 
contradictions in this officially published Report on the Geology 
of the Northern District of New York, and of the persistent war 
waged alike against Ebenezer Emmons and his views and those 
of Amos Eaton, has yet to be written. 
§ 11. These perplexing discrepancies and contradictions in the . 
volume of 1842 were mentioned by the present writer in 1878 
(“ Azoic Rocks,” p. 57) as probably due to want of method and to 
a change of views in the preparation of the work. In 1885 the dis- 
«See for the preceding references the “ Geology of the Northern or Second Dis- 
trict of New York,” by E. Emmons, 1842, pp. 121, 124, 125, 280-282, and further, 
P. 147. 
