verbs in the singular, I reply: They may, as some of them certainly should, be recast-transformed, if possible, into correct, if not into elegant, English.

66

66

Take another sentence (p. 27): "Great surprise was created some years since by the discovery..... that a certain kind of siliceous stone was composed of millions of the remains of organic beings." Surprise" was occasioned," or "experienced," would be better than "was created." After the closest scrutiny, it still remains doubtful just what some years since properly means, while some years ago" is perfectly plain. So the expression "was entirely composed," indicating a fact of unvarying import as to time, should obviously be, "is entirely composed." There is a similar example on page 144: "Geologists were not long in seeing that the boulder formation was [properly, is] characteristic of high latitudes."

A clause (p. 29) reads, "The rocks scarcely contain any other fossils except snail-shells." It is difficult, in this instance, to see the use of "other." If it be retained, "than " should be substituted for "except." One might drop both words, and use simply "but."

In respect to the sentence (p. 47), "It appeared clear..... that certain spaces had been "alternately sea, then land, then estuary," it may be asked what the words "alternately sea" mean; also, what is the relation expressed by "alternately,” "then," "then," "alternately" supposing two points of contrast, and seldom three.

--

cases

Such language as the following is of frequent occurrence: p. 99,"Which of the two may be the oldest; and p. 106, "The chalk was the oldest of the two formations," in which the merest tyro in grammar would be expected to use the comparative, and not, like Sir Charles, the superlative.

On p. 91, there occurs: "The quantity of detritus now being distributed would cause an elevation," strange language for an Englishman; English critics having condemned expressions like "now being distributed" as outlandish

Americanisms. Certainly, "now in process of distribution" is more elegant.

I find on p. 110, "This great work and those [viz. "great work"] of A. Brongniart..... show"-a construction which, if occasionally pardonable in oral discourse, I trust has not yet become classic.

"Palaeontology" and its derivatives, with some other kindred words, are spelled sometimes with a diphthong, sometimes with a simple "e." Uniformity is surely preferable. "Density" is used (p. 87) - probably from sheer carelessness in the expressions, "maximum density" and "enormous density," the meaning clearly being not density, but a thickness of 40,000 feet."

A specimen of carelessness in another direction occurs (p. 118): "Their geographical area [i.e. that of the Tertiary series] being usually small compared to the Secondary formations." These words, as comparing incompatibles, are, of course, sheer nonsense as they stand; the meaning evidently is "small compared with that [viz. the area] of the Secondary formations."

This example reminds me that "compare," "correspond," "conform," "parallel," and some other kindred words, with their derivatives, constantly occur with the particle "to," while their etymology suggests that "with" is their proper, and should be their usual, accompaniment.

The author (p. 118) speaks of "successive sets of strata " "lying one upon the other." "One upon the other" implies that there were only two, and would be proper if that were the case. There being more than two, he should have written" one upon another."

It may be remarked that the sense is often obscured by the misplacement of adverbs and adverbial phrases. These are almost invariably made to separate the compound auxiliaries, when they would more elegantly, not to say more consistently with the sense, follow them so as directly to modify the principal verb. For instance, in the clauses (p. 210), "The Miocene may best be studied," (p. 215)

"Cones have recently been obtained," and (p. 477) “ Might fairly have inferred," what should "best," "recently," and "fairly," specially modify the auxiliaries, or the main verbs? If the latter, they ought by all means to be placed as near them as the other words will consistently allow. In a few instances, over against hundreds of misplacement, the collocation of the words is right; e.g. (p. 445) "It has been already stated."

Instead of " 'some few," which frequently occurs, as on p. 180, "some few of those eleven shells," "a few" would certainly be in better taste, if not more correct.

An instance of affected correctness, which is, after all, inaccurate, may be seen (p. 177), "At the close of the Newer Pliocene, and in the Post-Pliocene periods." Now "Newer Pliocene" and "Post-Pliocene," in the sense of the passage, cannot agree with "periods." Rarely, if ever, does an additional adjective necessarily require a change from singular to plural in the noun described. Instead of this, sound criticism and exactness of thought suggest that the substantive is understood with the first adjective, it being expressed with the second. Take, as a good instance, “the Old [Testament] and the New Testament," not "the Old [Testaments] and the New Testaments." So it is properly, "the Newer Pliocene [period] and the Post-Pliocene period."

As is frequent in England, Sir Charles often uses the "present-perfect" tense when the sense and strict propriety require the indefinite past; e.g. (p. 144) " Erratics have not unfrequently travelled hundreds of miles from the parent rocks from which they have evidently been detached." While the tense of the first verb is perhaps defensible, that of the second is certainly incorrect. The last clause should clearly stand: "From which they were [indefinite past time] evidently detached."

The author almost invariably employs the indicative form of the verb after "if." It gives me great pleasure to cite one out of a few instances noted in which he more elegantly uses the subjunctive mood. Speaking of the tests of age, he

says (p. 505) "If a volcanic rock rest upon an aqueous deposit," it is still the newer mass.

In the clause (p. 78), " It could be assumed that both the upward or downward movement are everywhere uniform," "both" and "or" are brought into strange correlation.

Instances of the inelegant use of "where," for "in which," are frequent; e.g. (p. 122) " Cases will occur where it may be scarcely possible to draw the boundary line between the Recent and Post-Pliocene deposits."

In the sentence (p. 133), "Schmerling examined forty cases near Liége, and found in all of them the remains of the same fauna," good sense, not to say grammatical propriety, demands that "found in all of them" be changed to "in them all found."

I had almost forgotten to remark that words ending in "ward," and thus denoting tendency, as "toward," "forward," "southward," and the like, are almost invariably burdened with a superfluous "s." This corruption,. so contrary to etymology and the sound usage of the classic writers in English literature, I am sorry to say has of late crept into use, and is now countenanced by many of the so-called standard dictionaries. The inappositeness of this form becomes evident, if one of the words, e.g. "southward," be made an adjective, as it often is when preceded by an article. Thus Sir Charles somewhere says, " the southward [not southwards] inclination of the country."

This reminds me of an equivocal use of " upward" on p. 146: "These angular blocks have been [were] brought for a distance of fifty miles and upwards [upward]." Is it meant by "and upward" that they were carried "to a higher level," or "more than fifty miles"? If the latter, as seems evident from the context, the words might have stood, "They were borne fifty miles or [and] more."

On p. 516, I find the prim and by no means well-authorized form "firstly,' ""secondly," for "first," "secondly," etc.

After the mention of certain features in a formation, it is said (p. 576), "The same phenomena are also repeated in

the beds below," by which is probably meant "kindred" or 66 similar," but not "the same."

In the sentence (p. 571), "Clay, marl, etc ..... often contain a considerable proportion of alkali, so much so as frequently to make them unfit to be burnt into brick," it may be asked what is the use of the second" so." If one attempt to complete the clause, he will see the incongruity. It is, in fact, one of the fag-ends so frequent in Sir Charles's style.

Without citing any more examples illustrative of the composition of this new volume, I think all will agree that it has many faults of style which should never mar a manual for beginners.

I proceed, next, to notice the distribution of the matter, having reference to classification generally. In the book now occupying attention, there is less excellence in this direction than might be at first supposed. While there is considerable formal regularity, some show of a systematic arrangement, the classification seems to be defective, as not resting on principles or founded in a profound apprehension of the nature of the things discussed.

Take, as an instance, the author's general, and it should be a fundamental, division of the rocks of the globe. He distributes them all into four great classes, viz. Aqueous, Volcanic, Plutonic, and Metamorphic. Now, as he professes to divide them "according to their origin," it may be fairly asked, whether, in this light, the so-called metamorphic rocks can be properly regarded as co-ordinate with the other divisions named. If the foliated or schistose masses were, as he supposes, really formed as sedimentary beds, they belong to the aqueous series, and thus are not an independent and comprehensive group. If crystallization was superinduced, as he holds, after their formation, another mark of subordination is added. Thus they constitute, on the one hand, only a part of the aqueous series; meanwhile, the transformation they have undergone, which is regarded as their characteristic feature, is certainly incidental. The