Correspondence . 
277 
points of difference between us than continue it. The dramatic role 
which I seem to play in his imagination of appearing and disappear¬ 
ing in some lurid scene which he does not more fully describe, affords 
him, I trust, some amusement in the lonely moments of his occasion¬ 
al jaunts through the lakes of northern Minnesota. That it should 
form part of an argumentative discussion, however, on an impor¬ 
tant and utterly impersonal scientific question is something for 
which I was not prepared, and indicates a state of irritability on the 
professor’s part which I am loath once more to excite. But there are 
some misunderstandings and misrepresentations of my views and ar¬ 
guments which I feel constrained, even at the risk of appearing on the 
“ scene ” more suddenly than may be good for his nerves, to endeavor 
in a few words to clear up. 
1. Prof. W. says : “My former and only contention, it will be noted, 
was for the original sedimentary condition of the great granite and 
gneissic masses. ” This was not the issue between us. I laid down, 
and, I think, substantiated, the following proposition: “It is highly 
improbable that the foliation of the gneiss has anything to do with an 
original sedimentation. * * * “ This conclusion does not necessa¬ 
rily imply that the gneiss and schist may not have been originally sedi¬ 
mentary and conformable.” This is the proposition Prof. W. com¬ 
batted, for to use his own words he proceeded “ to summarize briefly 
the facts which have led him to believe the foliation of the gneisses 
sustains a relation of dependence on an antecedent sedimentary 
structure.” 
It is just as well in discussions of this sort to have a clear under¬ 
standing of the question at issue. I certainly never advanced an argu¬ 
ment to combat “the original sedimentary condition of the great 
granite and gneissic masses.” I have never discussed the question 
pro or con. I have adduced evidence in abundance to show that they 
have passed through a magmatic and irruptive (not eruptive ) stage. I 
have shown that these gneisses and granites - were in this magmatic 
condition at a time w T hen the overlying schists of the upper Archaean 
were in a hard and brittle state ; that in this condition they penetrated 
the schists and now hold inclosed in them angular and lenticular frag¬ 
ments of those schists in great profusion, and therefore as rocks they 
are of later age than the schists and truly irruptive. 
2. Prof. W. misrepresents me when he quotes my statement, “ We 
know nothing of the kind ’ ’ and makes it appear that I deny that 
rocks may be reduced to a state of plasticity or semi-fluidity at suffi¬ 
ciently high temperature. I beg to refer to the paragraph (10) of my 
“Reply ” in proof of the misrepresentation. 
3. Prof. W. says: “In the end Dr. L. makes it appear that he has 
come almost to my position.” Prof. W. has evidently misunderstood 
my position from the first, and fails to understand that without enter¬ 
ing into the question of the former sedimentary condition of the gneiss, 
the evidence adduced proves it to have been in a fused or magmatic 
condition, and to have been irrupted through the upper and confused 
