86 
CONGRES GEOLOGIQUE INTERNATIONAL. 
Feb., 1890. 
planned. And there was a very interesting and valuable 
collection of geological exhibits in the library of the 
University. 
I will treat briefly of :— 
1st. The President’s Address and the meetings for dis¬ 
cussion ; 
2 nd. The afternoon visits to places of interest, and the 
evening receptions; 
3rd. The Geological Exhibition ; and 
4tli. Offer a few remarks on the advantages of the Con¬ 
gress, and its future work. 
I. After sundry preliminaries, under the chairmanship of 
the late President, Professor Beyrich, of Berlin, the new 
“ Bureau du Congres ” was elected, and the new President, Pro¬ 
fessor Prestwich, of Oxford, took the chair. His address was 
delivered fluently in French ; and, although I fear his voice 
scarcely filled the rather spacious theatre, was listened to 
with marked attention. This address recounted the past 
history of the Congress, gathered up the results of past 
labours, and offered some judicious remarks on the questions 
and subjects set down for present consideration and dis¬ 
cussion. At its close, the vote of thanks was proposed by 
Dr. Sterry Hunt, of Montreal, and seconded by Professor von 
Zittel, of Munich, who raised a genial laugh by referring to 
Professor Prestwich as “ the Nestor of English geologists;” 
and the members separated to attend the reception of 
Professor and Mrs. Prestwich. 
The sitting of Tuesday, 18th September, was occupied by 
a discussion upon nomenclature ; Professor Capellini, rector 
of the University of Bologna, one of the vice-presidents, in the 
chair. At the outset, one of the crucial difficulties of an 
international congress became apparent. Dr. Hicks wished 
to speak in English, and, after a little parley, the Chairman 
permitted this and appointed one of the Secretaries, 
M. Barrois, to act as interpreter into French. Dr. Hicks 
supported the well-known view of our President, and Dr. 
Lapwortli himself spoke, explaining his position. Dr. Sterry 
Hunt, of Montreal, spoke also substantially on the same side. 
There was, however, considerable diversity of opinion, 
although all agreed that the three divisions corresponded to 
the three faunas of M. Barrande, of Prague. Dr. Archibald 
Geikie and Professor Hull objected to change the name 
“ Lower Silurian” because it not only had priority, but also 
was associated with the work of Murchison. Professor Torell, 
of Stockholm, advocated the retention of the terms “ Lower ” 
and “ Upper Silurian,” rejecting the new term of 
