Edtorial Comment. 129 
stone" was the lowest fossiliferous member of this system, and in fact 
marked the dawn of life upon the planet. Dr. Emmons, on the contra- 
ry, claimed that beneath the oldest member of the Silurian system there 
was an older and extensively developed system of fossiliferous rocks to 
whibh he gave the name "Taconic," and exhibited an entirely new and 
characteristic fossil not before recognized or described and which re- 
ceived the name of "Olenellus." For all this Dr. Emmons received lit- 
tle or no credit, and among geologists was regarded as visionary and 
something of a humbug. But time at last has brought its revenges, for 
at the last meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of 
Science (Liverpool, September, 1896), Mr. J. E. Marr, F. R. S., presi- 
dent of the geological section, in an address reviewing the recent pro- 
gress in this department of science, took occasion to speak of the "Ole- 
nellus,'' whose first discovery he attributed to Dr. Emmons, as charac- 
tei-izing a zone of life much older than the Silurian system, and as 
"furnishiug us with a datum line from which we can work backward," 
and possibly prove the existence of a fauna of a date anterior to the 
formation of the Olenellus beds. So that Dr. Emmons, in place of be- 
ing wrong in his observations and deductions, in 1845, [1844, N. H. W.] 
did really find the fossil he described, and rightly located the rock con- 
taining it in the geological horizon: and was thus entitled to take the 
lead at that time over all his American and European colleagues. 
The fact that the discovery of this zone of life is now at- 
tributed to Dr. Emmons by a leading English geologist, when 
contrasting that zone with the Silurian sj'stem of Murehison, 
is gratifying to American geologists. It would be more grat- 
ifying if the legitimate and usual consequences of that prior- 
ity were also accorded to Dr. Emmons, viz, that the name by 
Avhich Dr. Emmons designated the rocks containing such 
fauna should be generally recognized and employed. There 
are but few instances in the records of science of more glar- 
ing and monstrous injustice than that which, with the con- 
nivance of American geologists, has deprived Emmons and 
American geology of the honor of giving name to that forma- 
tion. It had no conflict with Cambrian, because that collided 
with Silurian, creating the great controversy with Murehison. 
It is onl}' by shifting the significance of Cambrian, and ap- 
plying it to lower strata that that term has acquired use in 
place of the term Taconic. Modern American geologists, 
under tlie guide, at first, of partisans against Emmons, have 
very largely fallen into this error. We look to see the cor- 
rection come from the other side of the Atlantic, and chiefly 
from those countries whicli are not affected by the exclusion 
of either term. n. n. w. 
