Fersoiuil and Scienti/ic Xeirs. 3G7 
On the third da}' a similar discussion was had on the crys- 
talline schists. Eight printed memoirs were presented. These 
served as basis for the discnssion, which Avas participated in 
by Messrs. Lor}^ Mattirolo, Macfarlane, Issel, Heim, Hunt, 
Hicks, de Lapparent, Toreil and MacPherson. One of the 
most important statements made was that by Torell who said 
that he distinguished in Sweden two granites, one eruptive and 
the other ancient and passing to gneiss. This ancient granite 
presents in the environs of Stockholm a remarkably globular 
st**ucture. This structure, referred by several authors to a 
separation in a magma in fusion, had really a different cause. 
Gradual transitions have induced Torell to consider the globu- 
lar rock as a re-cemented gneissic breccia, modified after the 
break by hydrothermal penetrations. 
The fourth day was devoted to the limits and distinctions of 
the Tertiary and Quaternary. There was a strong opposition, 
led by M. Renevier, to the use of the term Quaternary. He 
considers it more properly as a sub-division of the Tertiary, 
and would replace it by the term Pleistocene. De Lapparent 
considered the appearance of man as an event so important, 
from a biological ]Doint of view, as to warrant the beginning of 
a new phase. M. Gaudry also thought the Quaternary should be 
separated from the Tertiary on account of the reign of man. 
M . Sacco mentioned seismic phenomena, added to those of a 
biological character, which favored the separation. Mr. Blan- 
ford agreed with Renevier. He regretted that the term had 
been adopted for the geological map of Europe. M. Gosselet 
saw a new argument in favor of the Quaternary in the great 
development of fluviatile phenomena, which characterize this 
epoch. Mr. John Evans thought that without assigning 
to the Quaternary as a division of time, absolutely the same 
value as to Tertiary as a convenient conventional term it 
would be useful to distinguish the epoch during which man 
has existed. De Lapparent considered that besides the appear- 
ance of man there were reasons strictly geological which char- 
acterized the Quaternary. Foraminifers and nunimulites are 
not found in the Quaternary. Simple volcanic explosions 
succeed the great floods through fissures that marked the 
Tertiary; finally may be mentioned the remarkable increase of 
glaciers. M. Pilar believed in a convenient and useful classifi- 
cation which would co-ordinate with the facts. He considered 
the anthropozoic group therefore equal in value to the mesozoic 
or the paleozoic. Mr. Prestwich agreed with Gaudry and de 
Lapp irent. The difficulty of finding a separation between 
the Quaternary and the Tertiary is found between other ter- 
ranes. The small relative extent of the (Quaternary is of no 
importance. That which dates history is great events. Now 
there was an event of the greatest importance in the Quater- 
