^{page 17 note *} Dr Richardson observes, that some mineralogists deny that this fossil is basalt. Several of the members present when this paper was read, some of whom, had examined the stone in its native place, were of that number. It was remarked, that though certain portions of the strata of this fossil bore much resemblance to some species of basalt, by far the greater part of the mass bore no resemblance whatever to any.

It was also stated, that the substance of the coarse-grained, undisputed basalt, which lies between the strata of this stone, does not contain any vestiges of marine animals: That veins often issue from the beds of this real basalt, and pervade the supposed siliceous species; fome of them connecting together the separate, beds of the real basalt; others dying away in (slender ramifications, as they rise through the interposed stratum. In no instance is this reversed: The veins never proceed from what is called the Siliceous Basalt. It was farther observed, that both the fracture and external surface of this stone exhibit a stratified structure, in many instances, which never happens in the true basaltes.