Wadsworth.] 
252 
[October 19, 
King state that the rock contains cyanite (II, p. 270), and 
was richly charged with “ minute crystals of cyanite ” (I, p. 
43). King overlooks the fact that if his statement was correct, the 
cyanite would he seen in the microscopic section, in which Zirkel 
had expressly stated that none could he seen. 
Thi§ rock was set apart as an abnormal and peculiar occurrence in 
the Fortieth Parallel district, on account of Professor Zirkel’ s state- 
ment as to its mineralogical composition. Accounts of it have heen 
published in Germany and Belgium and, together with the Haiiyne, 
to he spoken of later, have crept into text hooks and various publi- 
cations both in this country and in Europe. In the face of all this 
Mr. Merrill, while admitting that the rock contains no cyanite 
(disthene), thinks it a matter of no importance, and insinuates 
that the next fragment of the rock might contain this mineral. 
He overlooks the fact that the writer had stated that the rock 
was a mica schist “ similar to many mica schists in Hew England, 
and except that its color is grayish-white, has no resemblance to 
the paragonite schist from St. Gotthard 1 that is, the rock is not 
a paragonite schist but an ordinary mica schist. Furthermore, 
the rock and the section both give evidence that they were the 
ones described by Messrs. Zirkel, King, and Emmons. Also nei- 
ther this specimen (Col. Ho. 2647) nor any other in the collection, * 
when examined by me, gave the slightest evidence of bearing 
cyanite like that from St. Gothard. Heither was any evidence 
obtained that other specimens of this rock could be procured 
that did contain cyanite, or that were composed of paragonite. 
Hence, I claim that the rocks of the Red Creek district can no 
longer be kept in the abnormal position in which they were placed, 
through Zirkel’s mistake, as an occurrence of hydrous micaceous 
rocks on the Fortieth Parallel — the only occurrence. 
Again, this schist has an important bearing upon the question 
of the care and accuracy of Zirkel’s work ; and taken in connec- 
tion with other similar errors of fact, it enables one to decide 
regarding the reliableness of other portions of the work concern- 
ing which, from their theoretical bearings, there would be greater 
chance for difference of opinion. 
1 Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 1879, v, 284, 285. 
