386 The American Geologist. December, isos 
tions. The chemical and physical properties of the coals are consid- 
ered at length. The statistics of output and values are graphically 
shown. The report closes with a mining director}' and a chapter on 
mining laws. 
Much as we are indebted to professor Ilaworth and liis assistants 
for the great mass of facts presented, there are certain features for 
which geologists are not so thankful. Some of these features were 
prominently displayed in the earlier volumes of the series. They 
were passed over at the time for the reason that it was thought that 
succeeding accounts would have these evils corrected. Instead they 
have been greatly intensified. It therefore seems well to call atten- 
tion briefly to a few of them. While it is acknowledged that much 
of the work in Kansas was done under great difficulties, and that 
the principal author was plunged suddenly from his chosen field of 
mineralogy to the wholly different one of stratigraphy, these condi- 
tions hardly justify the position taken by him. Outsiders seek, and 
seek in vain, for any progressive purpose in the proposing of so many 
undefined and hence meaningless and useless titles for insignificant 
beds, and various terranes. The author himself appears to have ques- 
tioned the good form of such action. The excuse that they are "only 
local" seems worse than no excuse at all. To be sure the beds are 
local. But as soon as they are printed the names are the common 
property of the entire geological world; and necessarily form a part 
of geological literature, even if most of them must be relegated to 
the vast realm of the spurious. 
Since the appearance of the first volume of the series, of which 
the work under consideration is a part, geologists especially interested 
in the American Carboniferous have been not a little curious to know 
just what principles professor Haworth worked upon in his Kansas 
investigations. Volume III gives for the first time an insight into 
those principles. The startling statements are made that "Nomencla- 
ture, coupled with the claims of priority, is the bane of the scientist;" 
and that "It frequently happens that an investigator in a new field 
knowingly substitutes new names for old. sometimes with good rea- 
son, and sometimes apparently largely to have his name connected 
with future discussions of allied subjects." These two sentences form 
the key-note to the whole theme, and enable us to understand more 
easily why professor Haworth has been unable to solve satisfactorily 
the problems presented. 
The principles involved in the consideration of some of the points 
hereafter mentioned are of far wider than local significance. Did 
they but afifect Kansas alone the subject might be dismissed without 
further reference. The first of the sentences just quoted is indeed 
remarkable, and particularly as coming from the source that it does. 
Its author can hardly have intended its literal meaning, yet perusal of 
the rest of the paragraph precludes any other interpretation. Most 
people regard nomenclature as a means whereby thoughts are exactly 
expressed. Terms are employed in the same way that the carpenter 
