390 
SECOND REPORT - 1832 . 
that great country. With regard to particular Memoirs, I 
would especially refer to Hoffman’s Natursicht der geogno- 
stischen Verhdltnisse vom TV. W. Deutschland , 1830, accompany¬ 
ing his map ; this should be carefully collated with Murchison’s 
comparative views, as also should Helh on the lias of Wurtem- 
berg, Bronn on the fossils of the lithographic lime, Munster on 
the German oolites, and Huggy’s section of St. Jura, together 
with those of Merian and Rengger on its northern slope. 
The names of Freisleben, Ncegerroth, Heininger, and Yon 
Reaumer, belong to an earlier period than that of which we 
are now treating, and have long been familiar to every geolo¬ 
gist ; but it may convey some idea of the zeal with which the 
science is actually cultivated in their country, to append in a 
note a topographical list of the districts which have received 
additional illustration from important Memoirs published within 
the last five years * *. 
In Poland we are informed that M. Pasch has now in the 
press a great work illustrated by detailed maps of the geologi¬ 
cal structure of the whole country, having previously published 
in 1830 an abstract of his observations. M. Schneider has also 
published a Memoir on a particular district, in which we find 
copious details of the secondary rocks of the poecilitic group 
and lias, and are informed that coal is associated with the latter 
rock as in Yorkshire. 
Turning from Central Germany to the coast of the Baltic, 
(which may be considered especially interesting to the English 
Places. Described by 
* Wurtemberg... Alberti. 
Schwartzwald . Walchner. 
Heidelberg . Bronn. 
Hundsruck . Schmidt. 
Odenwald, Spessart, and Wetteravia . Klipstein. 
Hartz . Zincken and Hoffman. 
Cobourg . Hoff. 
Thuringerwald. Tauschner. 
Bohemia, and Erzegebirge . Klipstein. 
Riesengebirge . Moteglek. 
Lnsatia .. Peschek. 
Silesia . Gloker. 
Carpathians .. Pasch and Lilienbach. 
These are in addition to the Memoirs already cited in the text. The general 
geological reader may be referred for concise abstracts of all these to Femssac’s 
excellent periodical the Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles. These abstracts have 
materially assisted me in compiling the present Report. I have to regret that 
I did not receive Boue’s excellent Resume des Progres de la Geologie en 1880 
et 1831, addressed to the French Geological Society, January 1832, until after 
it was delivered at the Oxford Meeting;—at the late period, however, of pre¬ 
paring the Report for the press it has suggested some important insertions. 
