accounted for; and the occurrence of similar masses of fossilised wood in the islands of the antarctic seas, where the scantiest vegetation is now barely possible, might be a further aid to the solution of the problem. It is thus that all things hang together, and, from a plant to a planet, are mutually dependent-the apparently trivial occurrence of a submerged forest-growth leading to the most important of cosmical demonstrations.

The general conclusions to be derived from the occurrence of these old sea-margins and submarine forests are: that the crust of the earth is subject to slow movements of uprise and depression, not to be confounded with those of the earthquake, which are abrupt, and for the most part restricted to limited areas; that these movements, though differing in character from the convulsions of the earthquake, arise from great secular expansions and contractions of the crust, which are likely dependent on the earth's internal conditions; that they are main instruments in altering the distribution of sea and land, and thereby affecting the distribution of their flora and fauna; and that in the same latitudes they diminish the general temperature by upheaval, and, on the contrary, increase it by depression. As instruments of change in the terraqueous arrangements of the globe, these crust-movements are deserving of a closer investigation than they have yet received from geologists. The records of their operations are instructively and attractively preserved in the "raised beaches" and "submarine forests that occur along the coasts of many regions, and especially in those that present themselves so clearly along the seaboard and shores of the British Islands. What is more especially needed is, the tracing of the old sea-margins along considerable distances, obtaining their average altitudes, determining the nature of their organic remains where such

are present, and investigating the deposits in any caverns that may occur in their respective rock-cliffs. And as with the raised beaches so with the submarine forests-their position and extent, and, above all, the character of their imbedded flora and fauna, and the evidences which these afford of the climate and conditions under which they had apparently flourished. Towards these ends very little has been done in a truly scientific manner (Dr R. Chambers's 'Ancient Sea-Margins' being the only systematic but unfinished attempt), though the subject presents many inducements to research, and is replete with important bearings on geographical as well as on geological speculations.

SPECIES-MAKING AND NOMENCLATURE.

THAT every object should have a name by which it may be distinguished from every other object, is a maxim applicable alike to the most familiar concerns of everyday life and the most abstract matters of scientific investigation. That the name should be appropriate—that is, should have reference to some leading feature, quality, or condition— is of the first importance; and though an object may in time become generally known by any sort of name, still that which points to some distinguishing feature or quality must always be the most significant, and consequently most readily remembered. If this holds good in the ordinary matters of life, much more must it be applicable to the objects of science, and especially to those of Geology, which embraces so wide a field in time as well as in space, and in all the kingdoms of nature-mineral, vegetable, and animal. And yet in no modern science is the nomenclature so heterogeneous and often unmeaning; in none is the practice of species-making carried to such a ridiculous and retarding

excess.

An observer, for instance, falls in with an unknown rock, and he gives it a name from some external feature or resemblance; another observer meets with the same rock,

or with a mere variety of it, but founding on some quality rather than appearance, he gives it a name instead of considering it merely as a variety; and a third observer, stumbling upon another variety, disregards what has been done by his predecessors, and gives a third name, which refers to locality, and has nothing to do either with appearance or with inherent quality. In this way, Lithology and Mineralogy (two important departments of Geology) became a confusing mass of synonyms, some relating to external aspect, others to inherent qualities-some to locality where found, and others, again, to the name of the finder-and yet each and all referring to the self-same object, or at most to a mere accidental variety of it. Nothing can be more perplexing than this to the student-nothing more retarding to the genuine progress of the science; and yet, considering the generally distinctive features of rocks and minerals, nothing could be more easily avoided.

In dealing with simple rocks and minerals, there is always some external character or inherent quality whereby one mineral can be distinguished from another, and such character or quality should be seized on and embodied in the name as referring to a distinctive fact in nature. Το found upon locality—or, worse still, to found upon the names of discoverers-is to convey not a single jot of information as to the nature of the mineral, but simply to give a sound instead of sense, and to administer to personal vanity rather than to disseminate information. Again, as to mixed rocks-sandstones, shales, coals, limestones, granites, and the like-which present every degree of variety, any attempt to arrange them under distinctive generic or specific names is not only impossible, but futile and perplexing. A student may soon learn to recognise a crystal of beryl, and will understand at once what is meant by an impure variety of beryl; but he can attach no idea whatever

to the term Davidsonite. Most people understood what is meant by a cannel coal, and what an earthy variety of cannel signifies; but few, if any, could associate any intelligible idea with the designation Torbaneite. And yet, when we come to inquire, Davidsonite is but a local and impure variety of beryl, and Torbaneite an equally local and tough earthy variety of cannel!

*

And when we turn to the paleontological side of the science, matters are even still worse-new, specific, and even generic designations being founded on distinctions often the most trivial and temporary. In Fossil Botany, for instance, we find Dr Hooker complaining that "the botanical evidences which geologists too often accept as proofs of specific identity are such as no botanist would attach any importance to in the investigation of existing plants. The faintest traces, assumed to be of vegetable origin, are habitually made into genera and species by naturalists ignorant of the structure, affinities, and distribution of living plants, and of such materials the bulk of so-called systems of fossil plants is composed." This is a grave charge, indeed, and yet it must be confessed it is too true, both as regards the temerity to give names to unintelligible fragments, and the principles of the nomenclature itself. Carbonised and coaly fragments, it may be either of stem, of branch, or of leaf, are yearly erected into genera and species; roots, stems, and leaves of the same plant often receive different generic titles; and legible fragments of well-known genera have as regularly conferred upon them new specific designations because of some accidental or temporary variation. And thus it is that the science of Fossil Botany is cumbered with unnecessary genera, while the specific names convey no information whatever, either as to appearance, structure, or affinity. The term Whit* Himalayan Journal.

Ꭱ