The Cambridge Expedition to East Greenland in 1929 set sail from Aberdeen on 2nd July in the sealing-sloop Heimland, which had been chartered from Tromsö, Norway. Taking the Fair Isle passage, the edge of the pack-ice was reached six days later, and entered in the region of latitude 71° 30′ N., longitude 15° 30′ W. Last summer proved unusually difficult for navigation in the East Greenland ice-current, and it was not until 4th August after a month in the ice that we reached land-water and anchored in Mackenzie Bay. From the Bay a course was steered west-wards along Franz Josef Fjord to the foot of the Riddar Valley on the west side of Kjerulf Fjord. Here the party divided; the ship-party with two geologists during the next fortnight studied the tectonics shown in the great cliff-sections bounding Franz Josef Fjord and King Oscar Fjord (Davy Sound) and their branches (Fig. 1), while a second party of six was landed near Riddar Valley in order to map the tract of country lying immediately to the west of the head of Franz Josef Fjord (Fig. 2). Their ultimate objective was Petermann Peak, discovered by Payer and Copeland of the German Arctic Expedition of 1869–70, and estimated to be 11,000 feet high. A hurried reconnaissance in 1926 to the Cambridge Peaks had shown that the most likely route to the interior would be westwards along the watershed between the head of Kjerulf Fjord and the Nordenskiöld Glacier. The land-party left Kjerulf Fjord on 6th August, reached Petermann Peak on 15th August, and returned to base on 18th August. The present paper embodies the geological work carried out during the mountain journey, and is based on collections made by Mr. J. M. Wordie and Mr. V. E. Fuchs.

The samples to be described in this paper were taken from a small bay on the north coast of Sutherland called Traigh Allt Chailgeag on the Ordnance map. This bay is about three miles east of Durness, and one mile west of the mouth of L. Eireboll. It is eroded in gneiss, and is fed by a small stream at either end of the bay.

The genus Dimorphoceras was instituted by Hyatt, the genotype being Goniatites gilbertsoni (Phillips). The shells are involute and compressed, having the umbilicus very small or closed. The test shows fine lines of growth and a deep hyponomic sinus. Dimorphoceras is differentiated from other goniatites by having either one or both of the sutural lobes sub-divided by a small subsidiary saddle. Specimens are not generally abundant; and owing to the feeble ornamentation of the test, distinction between species is impossible unless uncrushed specimens showing sutures are obtained.

The mineral afwillite (3CaO.2SiO2.3H2O) is so far recorded only from the Kimberley Mines (Parry and Wright, Min. Mag., 1925, p. 277), where it occurs in association with natrolite, apophyllite, and calcite in a dolerite inclusion in kimberlite. Its occurrence with markedly different associations is sufficient warrant for a short record. Examination of the mineral associates of spurrite of the contact zone of the Scawt Hill dolerite Co. Antrim has revealed a second occurrence of afwillite, lining a cavity in a thin calcitic crust covering a spurrite contact rock.

In a recent paper, Dr. L. L. Fermor (12) discusses the composition of chlorophaeite and palagonite and the employment of these terms, with special reference to the present writer's view of this subject, reached principally through a study of the palagonitetuffs of Iceland (11). In an earlier extended study of Indian traps Dr. Fermor had concluded that the orange and brown chlorophaeite-like bodies, often called “palagonite” by the Indian Survey petrographers, are identical with chlorophaeite, and that the similar associated greenish substance, also embraced in the term “palagonite” by these workers, is perhaps, when anisotropic, the chlorite delessite (10, p. 133). One inference from these observations is that palagonite comprises chlorophaeite and the associated green substance; another is that the application of palagonite to these bodies was primarily a misnomer.

While working for several years on Palaeozoic Bryozoa with the aim of establishing the Palaeozoic stratigraphy of the Altai Mountains on the basis of the Bryozoan faunas, I have always been aware of a great contradiction. The works of American authors showed clearly that the stratigraphic importance of the Bryozoa is not inferior to that of any other group of fossils, whilst in the works of newer European authors the Palaeozoic Bryozoa were not only deprived of any significant rôle, but often even quite ignored. Owing to this, there arose a question whether the Palaeozoic Bryozoa have a universal distribution like, for instance, the Brachiopoda; or whether there is in North America a special Bryozoan fauna of stratigraphic importance locally, but absent from other parts of the globe. The study of the Siberian Palaeozoic Bryozoa showed a number of forms so far known only from North America, and this suggested that the apparent absence of “American” forms in the other parts of the globe is owing to the lack of intensive study given to the Palaeozoic Bryozoan faunas outside North America. Through the kindness of Dr. Nalivkin, who handed over to me several Bryozoa collected by him in the Middle Devonian of Germany, I was able to confirm this suggestion and I decided to examine, if possible, the existing collections of Palaeozoic Bryozoa of Europe. This appeared the more necessary because, although Palaeozoic Bryozoa were originally described by European authors, yet the species described by them were quite ignored by later American writers. Clearly then, if a comparison of the European with the American Palaeozoic Bryozoa were made, it would be likely that the trivial names of some American species would be replaced by the prior trivial names of European species. To make this comparison, I visited during the winter of 1928–1929 some of the most important museums of Europe, in which I could find either the type specimens of the European Bryozoa, or merely rich collections of topotypes. A revision of the material contained in the museums of Berlin, Munich, Bonn, Prague, Paris and London wholly confirmed my view, namely, that the “American” forms of Palaeozoic Bryozoa were universally distributed, but hitherto had been described and figured, often quite incorrectly, as distinct genera.