PROCEEDINGS—PERTHSHIRE SOCIETY OF NATURAL SCIENCE. XXI 
the progress evinced is to a large extent contemporaneous with 
the progress of the science of geology itself, and one might go 
even further than this and point out that interest in the study of 
landscape as a thing of beauty in itself is a growth of comparatively 
recent times. Of course, there are very notable exceptions, but 
as a rule the earlier painters regarded landscape as merely an 
unimportant adjunct, or “filling,” to their figure subjects, to be 
painted, not from life-model in the open field, but from certain 
preconceived and conventional ideas, within the four walls of the 
studio. This, as I have said, is changed now, but there is still a 
lingering feeling amongst many artists that attention to minor details 
of earth-structure is something beneath their notice, or, at least, 
that too much attention to such details would destroy the artistic 
value of their w r ork. Now, I am not in any way arguing against the 
views of the “Impressionist” School of recent years. That is to say, 
I do not imply that features of the distant landscape should be repro¬ 
duced with telescopic distinctness. By all means let them be veiled 
by all the atmospheric softening that Nature herself loves to draw 
over the landscape, and even let this be exaggerated in harmony with 
the most myoptic vision; but what I do insist upon is, that whatever 
details are portrayed, or even faintly indicated, should be true to 
Nature, and should not give even an impression of something which 
is utterly impossible. 
I do not profess to be an art critic, and therefore it w r ould be 
presumptuous on my part to single out any particular artist for adverse 
criticism. I may, however, from a purely geological point of view, be 
allowed to point out some of the technical errors into which artists 
frequently fall, and which might easily be obviated by a slight 
knowledge of earth-lore. For instance, the rocks which occur 
in situ in any particular locality are either sedimentary, metamorphic, 
or volcanic, and each of these has its own characteristic mode of 
out-crop, which can be detected by the trained eye at a glance. 
In the case of the first named, the lines of stratification must be 
strictly parallel, and the curves must all be harmonious with each 
other. In the case of metamorphic rocks, the “texture” of the 
surface will at once indicate the nature of the deposit. The peculiar 
gnarling, for instance, of the schistose rocks of the Trossachs gives 
the whole charm to the scenery of that district, and yet the effect is a 
very subtile one, which artists frequently fail to catch. With regard 
to volcanic rocks, the angle of the jointing is a constant and a very 
characteristic feature, and yet it is one with which liberties are very 
frequently taken by the artist. The same remarks apply, of course, to 
rocks in the foreground, as well as to the larger features of the land¬ 
scape. Even the colour of the soil is a source of possible error if too 
much scope is given to the imagination. The soil is derived almost 
entirely from the disintegration of the rocks, and this is one reason 
why the colouring of Nature’s own landscapes is invariably harmonious. 
I am afraid, however, the same cannot always be said of the land¬ 
scapes of man’s creation. Reverting again to the illustration of the 
ancient river terraces, it may be argued by the artist that these form 
an unpleasing feature in the landscape which requires to be idealised. 
