Nearly ten years ago it was my privilege to describe the British Cretaceous forms of this Family in the Geological Magazine. The Family was seen to be capable of subdivision into at least five well-marked genera, and to these a sixth very singular and remarkable one from Aix-la-Chapelle, and also represented at Blackdown, may be added. It was then that the Family reached its zenith, and in the still later Cretaceous rocks of Europe, as a flame burns brightest near its end, so some species suddenly assumed relatively gigantic proportions, and as suddenly became extinct. A few survived in America down to that much later period, the close of the so-called Cretaceous series on that continent. Only two types lived on to the present day and only one of these has ever since Cretaceous times been represented in our area.

Although the ‘Culm,’ or Carbonaceous series, of Devonshire, has long been known and studied, it has been a matter of considerable doubt as to the exact horizon in the Carboniferous formation with which it may properly be correlated.

In plates lxii. lxvii. lxviii. of part 7 of the “Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis” (1847) a large number of remains of Merycopotamus (nearly all of which are in the collection of the British Museum) are figured under the name of M. dissimilis, although some of them are distinguished as var. major and others as var. minor; and it thus appears that at that date the authors of the work quoted referred all the remains to one species. It is stated, however, in Falconer's “Palæontological Memoirs,” vol. ii. p. 407, note 4, that in 1846 Falconer considered that there were two species, which he proposed to call M. dissimilis and M. nanus; and some of the smaller specimens figured in the “F. A. S.” under the former name, bear upon them the latter name in Falconer's handwriting. In some manuscript notes of Falconer's, written at a much later date, the name M. nanus is once again employed (although the tooth to which it was applied does not belong to Merycopotamus at all); and it would therefore seem that Falconer had by that time reverted to his original view.

An examination of the fine series of the remains of Anthracotheriidæ from the Hempstead beds of the Isle of Wight contained in the British Museum, and their comparison with specimens and casts of the remains of the allied Continental forms, has led to the following conclusions. Some of the specimens will be figured on a future occasion.

The outcrop of the London Clay to the north of Southampton, near the edge of the Hampshire basin, beyond Bishopstoke, Romsey, etc., was mapped by the officers of the Geological Survey many years ago.

The phenomenon of “Slickensides” is considered to occur only in connexion with faulting, and it has frequently happened that another name has been conferred upon it when not accompanied by signs of fracture; but some recent observations have led me to doubt the propriety of making such a distinction.

Sir,—In Number IV. of these notes, that on the Crystalline Rocks of Upper Egypt, I have mentioned the apparent absence of limestone from the Laurentian series as seen at Assouan. I should have added, however, that some of the crumbling schists seen in the low land east of the railway cutting resembled very closely the calcareous schists associated with the Grenville bed of Limestone on the Ottawa River, and gave the impression that Crystalline Limestone might not improbably occur in that vicinity.

Sir,—In Number IV. of these notes, that on the Crystalline Rocks of Upper Egypt, I have mentioned the apparent absence of limestone from the Laurentian series as seen at Assouan. I should have added, however, that some of the crumbling schists seen in the low land east of the railway cutting resembled very closely the calcareous schists associated with the Grenville bed of Limestone on the Ottawa River, and gave the impression that Crystalline Limestone might not improbably occur in that vicinity.

Sir,—If I correctly apprehend Mr. Fisher's reasoning, it is impossible to determine whether an island is “Oceanic” or not until it be known whether at any period in its geological history it has been connected with an existing continent. This is unfortunate; for the advocates of the permanency of oceans and continents insist that “oceanic islands” throw great light upon the problem. It would appear that they have been, as I pointed out in my first communication, arguing in a circle and from “phrases,” not ascertained facts.