Wadsworth.] 420 [October 3, 



opinion to hold a most unphilosophical dogma. No matter if it 

 does appear to hold good in Germany — the Wernerian hypothesis 

 seemed to do so for Saxony — the question is what holds good 

 for the world. 



Dr. Lagorio at least seems to hold as I do, that there is no 

 proper separation between the hornblende- and augite-andesites, 1 

 and while I understand why such a division is made I deny its 

 validity (Z. 115). 



If I can place any dependence upon the statements made to 

 me by those conversant with the work of the 40th Parallel Ex- 

 ploration, comparatively few of the sections were made in this 

 country, while the general views of Mr. King on the classifica- 

 tion of these rocks were published in 1870, four years before Zir- 

 kel began his work. The general distinctions which Zirkel 

 claims to have made without knowing Mr. King's views (Z. Ill, 

 112) are those that every lithologist readily makes — the separa- 

 tion of an altered rock from an unaltered one, terms which ap- 

 proximate to the divisions older and younger. But ZirkePs 

 statements here prove nothing regarding the chief portion of the 

 work — especially that on the modern volcanic rocks. Again it 

 seems evident from his own words that he was successful only in 

 the majority of cases in this preliminary examination; but after 

 Mr. King had acquainted him "with the geological distribution, 

 relative age, and reciprocal connections of the rocks," Zirkel was 

 able to do his work in such a manner that of some 2500 thin sec- 

 tions he tells Mr. King " that your original designations should 

 almost never be altered or corrected." (W. 249, 271 ; Z. 113 ; 

 VI, page 15.) 



Concerning the question of the transportation of the rock spec- 

 imens across the Atlantic I gave the name of my informant, Mr. 

 King himself. The statement which I published from the French, 

 I took from a paper whose complete title I gave, and no statement 

 could be found then or can be found now about the paper indi- 

 cating that it was not the direct production of Zirkel himself. 

 It should have been stated to be a translation, instead of being 

 published with all the marks of an original pa]:>er. I do not see 

 but that Zirkel's remark in the paper to which he refers (Z. 112), 

 " that he went to America to look over the collection and to pick 



1 Die Andesite des Kaukasus, Dorp at, 1878. 



