Correspondence. 63 
One rt'.-uls witli iistdtiisliini'itt nf "ixior fossils al)S()lul('ly iiu'Dmpi'U'iil 
to inform us witli cortainty" (by this the Triassic Dii^loplora are moanl), 
wiicrcas I refer to tlie extended Heleinnites, wliich I know in the east- 
ern continuation of llie chain, for the view held till now. Mr. G. de- 
pends more on petrouraphic "liabitus'" and an insecure analogy with 
the "Brian^'onnais:" he thinks there arc occiirrcncesof "intercalations" 
of (piartz, sandy Dolomite, and (;y|)sum. Up to this time only Lime- 
stone and secondary sej:re;iia lions lia\t' been seen as they occur in every 
limestone: jjossibly Mr. (J. lias allowed himself to be deceived by 
Kotliidolomite folded from below upwards. (C'ompare my section Sheet 
i.\, fig. 1, right hand side.) Hut how any one can make Triassic dolo- 
mite on such a basis out of our high mountain limestoni! is undiscover- 
able. 
In till- Unti'rwassei' section fcom[)are my figuri' 4) I know of no I'epe- 
t ition of the beds. 
In the nucleus of the Pfafl'enkopf wedgi' there is no I^ias: on the other 
hand it occurs on till' boundary towards tiie Gneiss at Ahorni, where 
according to G.'s hypothesis it ouglit not tooccur, and where besitles the 
wedge is wrongly drawn. 
Mr. G. opposes or finds fault with the pre.sence of Eocene on sheet xiii 
in Reichenbachthal, etc. Inexi)licably the imi)ortaiit Ectcene trough of 
this valley corroborated by myself and Mcisch, which has been abso- 
lutely established by Xummuliles, largely develoj)ed Taveyannaz sand- 
stone, and Flysch. seems to have escaped him. 
Th(> statement on p. 20!) that I assume Flysch on my older chart along 
the foot of i>erni'se Oberland mountain wall, where Dogger exists, is in- 
correct as my legend proves. Provisionally Dogger, Oxfordian, and 
Eocene were indicated there in the same color, because their bounda- 
ries were not at that time settled. This "[jretended Flysch" exists only 
in the fancy (jf Mr. Golliez. 
In fine, the section by Mr. (iollie/. of ;\[eiringen to Innertkircheii so 
far as it is correct has long been known, and where it woidd ofl'er sur- 
prising novelties it is wrong. 
2. Transverse section of the Bernese Oberland. by H. Golliez: page 212. 
Under this pompous title a section from the Moncli to the Habkehren 
valley is given, in regard to the northern part of which Mr. Golliez will 
have to explain himself to Mosch: only the southern half concerns me. 
Thediscovery which ]\Ir. Golliez made in the gorge of the Aar recurs 
here again, but he is more sure of his affair; the tlanks(.\bstarze)()f the 
Monch are said to be Triassic-marble according to the section. Who- 
ever, at the little Scheidegg. sees oidy occurrences of marble may im- 
agine that the Monch is marl)le \ip to itsgneiss cap. In fact, the marble 
is a very small factor (■omi)ared to t he ordinary high mountain lime- 
stone. Dokmiite has nowhere been oi)serse(l, and as little has the Opal- 
inien bounded l)y marble. 
Mr. (lolliez's Trias hypothesis (or Ix'lter, illusion) is wrong for the 
MOnch al.so, and has not a trace of holding ground. Were it correct, 
for consistencv's sake, on maiivof the Dufour sheets Malm would have to 
