Marcou.] 
88 
| Nov. 7, 
are necessary. Mr. Hitchcock says “The Georgia group was pro- 
posed by me to embrace two other terranes (sic) as well as the one 
under consideration, and the name of Georgia was employed be- 
cause the whole group was exhibited within the township with 
characteristic fossils, and its use did commit the report to any one 
of the three views that had been proposed for its age.” Let us ex- 
amine the value and correctness of that definition. In the Ver- 
mont report there is no trace that the Georgia group embraces three 
groups called terranes (sic) and it is classified as Upper Silurian, 
being between the quartz rocks and the talcose conglomerate. 
The definition given in the report, p. 358, is: “We use the term 
Georgia group to designate this terrain, 1 from the town of Georgia 
in Franklin county, where it is developed in its full proportions, 
and where the most interesting fossils have been found.” Every- 
one would suppose from that definition that a good description of 
the Georgia group in the town of Georgia would follow as the typi- 
cal place and original area of that group. Not at all ; there is not 
a single word about the rocks covering the whole township of Geor- 
gia nor a single section local or general, of that township. All 
the lithology, range, extent and thickness, are taken outside of 
Georgia. The celebrated Parker’s quarry is ignored completely, 
and its name is not even once given. It seems as if Mr. Hitchcock 
did not know from what part of Georgia township the fossils he 
spoke of came. If we consult his geological map, we see that he 
has not colored the original area of the Georgia fossiliferous slates, 
as belonging to his “Georgia group ;” it being colored and referred 
to instead, as his “Oneida conglomerate.” All the strata, which 
constitute my original Georgia slates group round Parker’s quarry 
and those on Parker’s farm, and even one mile farther east, on the 
western side of a brook which flows north and empties into St. 
Albans’ bay, are not included by Mr. Hitchcock in his so-called 
“Georgia group.” Nothing can show better the value of his “origi- 
nal suggestion” for the correctness of which he wants to be credited. 
His absolute want of knowledge had led him hopelessly astray in 
dealing with the original area and locality “where the most interest- 
ing fossils have been found,” for he excluded the whole area from 
his “Georgia group.” It is hardly possible to imagine a strati- 
graphy so extraordinarily erroneous. Mr. Hitchcock in his pam- 
phlet “claims that the essential points of his definition of the 
1 In one paper Hitchcock uses terrane and in another terrain. 
