GEOLOGICAL CRITICISM 
313 
he has to say has any such interest. As for the final table which he calls 
“Known fossil zones of Pre-Cambric Rocks” and his classification, that 
is, to say the least, pure speculation. The names he proposes have no 
standing, are not defined, nor is there any evidence that the order of super¬ 
position which he gives is the true one. Indeed, we know of some of his 
divisions that they do not have the position at all which he assigns to 
them. That table should surely not be published in the “Naturalist,” 
with the implied impression that it has been approved by geologists. 
There is a very definite sub-division at the present time of the Pre-Cam¬ 
bric which may be obtained in our [my] latest textbooks but that is very 
different from the one given. If he has any evidence for such a classi¬ 
fication he ought to bring that out in a geological journal before he at¬ 
tempts to give this as a table for use of the general reader. If he would 
write a paper giving the history of the discovery of these early fossils and 
the present status of opinion as to their nature and age, it would be worth 
while, provided it were accurately done, to publish it in the “Naturalist,” 
but I certainly think it would be a grave mistake to publish this paper as 
it stands and I would certainly advise against, in any case, publishing 
such a table as he gives. 
This, despite the fact that the fossils mentioned incidentally 
were those described by Walcott, and the general geological sec¬ 
tion was essentially that of Lawson; both had described the sev¬ 
eral features in publications so well known that no ordinary work¬ 
ing geologist would need footnote references. It turned out that 
this selfsame censor at that very time had ready to publish a col¬ 
lege text-book on geology in which he had omitted all reference to 
two-thirds of the geological column, a time-span greater than that 
existing between the base of the Paleozoic sequence and the pres¬ 
ent. Small wonder is it that he had never heard of the article’s con¬ 
tents before. But why should he be foistering upon unsuspecting 
young people statements purporting to be latest opinions, that had 
really passed into oblivion a hundred years ago. And why should 
any editor of any scientific journal need to seek that sort of advice. 
The instance is not a solitary one. The majority of proceed¬ 
ings of our learned societies and our magazines are losing much 
of their worth just now by such discouragement of productive 
effort and are casting aside their most cherished heritage. The 
spirit of academic freedom of discussion begins to grow anemic 
and to wither away. Effects of World War penetrate every nook 
and corner of human endeavor. It requires herculean effort to 
stay the powers of atrophism. 
