MONTHLY NOTICE. 



129 



MONTHI*Y NOTICE. 



1st. May, 1842. 



We have been forcibly struck, on perusing a recently 

 published work on Geology, at the similarity of ideas ex- 

 pressed therein with the sentiments we have long since enter- 

 tained^ and which we find increasing amongst all classes of 

 Geologists ; we refer, of course, to the question of" nometicla- 

 ture." The recent establishment of the Silurian system, and 

 the existence of similar strata being proved in many other 

 quarters, has naturally produced the reflection, that the term, 

 although perfectly a propos with reference to British Geology^ 

 is inadmissible beyond this boundary; that, to speak of the 

 Silurian system of Russia, of France, or of any other locality, 

 is^ in a degree, invidious and incorrect ; for it appears to us, 

 that if a series of strata, containing peculiar fossils, be set 

 apart as a particular system, however exact the several relations 

 may be of identical strata in other and remote districts, or 

 however accurate their lithological character may be proved, 

 the non-accordance of the fossil contents, which are, at pre- 

 sent, the only index, would be the test of their right to 

 admission under the system, or their rejection. If it was a 

 question in which general statements are concerned, why 

 should it not have borne a general name ? and why, as the 

 evidence of identity is derived from the examination of a 

 district in our own country, should Geologists endeavour to 

 classify rocks of the same lithological character, occurring in 

 remote situations, under the British title ? approving or dis- 

 carding their admission, on the accordance or non-accordance 

 of their fossil contents. We have sufiicient data to prove 

 that other formations, existing in districts far removed from 

 each other, although perfectly agreeing as to construction 

 and comparative situation, but differing, both numerically 



VOL. I. — NO. v. K 



