Wadsworth.] 
254 
[October 19, 
is interestingly carried out by Zirkel, whose microscopic examina- 
tions in every way confirm the field arrangement.” (I, 107-109.) 
He also states : “ There is absolutely no evidence whatever in 
favor of the belief of granitic extrusions later than the Archaean 
age” (I, p. 111). This is the result of the promise to show why 
all of the eruptive granites were regarded in 1870 as Jurassic 
and in 1876 as part pre-Jurassic and the remainder as Jurassic. 
No mention is made of the previous views as such, nor are any 
reasons for the changes given, that the writer can find. No evi- 
dence is given by Mr. King to prove the correctness of his assign- 
ment of the granite to the Azoic (Archaean) derived from the 
study of the rocks in his district, beyond lithological evidence, — * 
evidence which he condemns (I, p. 111). Mr. King assumed that 
granite in solid points has been thrust up through the Paleozoic 
and more recent rocks, without giving any facts to sustain the 
view. He states that in many cases the granite formed islands 
in the Paleozoic sea while deposits of immense thickness were 
formed around them, but generally fails, until he comes to the 
more recent rocks, to show that the supposed surrounding rocks 
contain the debris of the island ones. 
In fact, his statements of his geological dynamics and the 
geological age of the granites are left as unproved assertions. 
Had any evidence been observed it is difficult to suppose it would 
have been passed over in silence. 
The rock from Cherokee Butte Mr. King calls a gneiss and states 
that “ Zirkel calls attention to the condition of the quartz which 
is made up of small worn and rounded fragments” (I, p. 83). 
This rock Zirkel called a granite and, instead of stating what King 
says he did, he remarked : “ The course of these lines gives the 
quartzes something the appearance of fragments or even of worn 
fragments” (VI, p. 55). 
The Wahsatch granite in 1876 presented “eminently charac- 
teristic types of eruptive granites” of Jurassic age (VI, pp. 50-52) ; 
but in 1878 it was referred to the Azoic. Statements of a series 
of geological phenomena of the most remarkable kind were ad- 
vanced. without proof of their correctness, in order to sustain the 
latter view of their age (I, pp. 44-51, 122-125, 174, 184). These 
statements were in some measure criticised by the Director of the 
