^{page 169 note 2} Vol xlix, pp. 441–446.

^{page 169 note 3} Vol. L, pp. 578–602.

^{page 170 note 1} Mem. Geol. Survey, vol. iii.

^{page 170 note 2} Q.J.G.S., vol. xxxiv, pp. 147–152.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 3} Q.J.G.S., vol. xxxv, pp. 309–320.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 1} All these reasons seem to me to have now disappeared. We have learned that flow-structure may he found also in an intrusive rock (see Sir A. Geikieinpostea, G, p. 93), the “slate” is a greenstone dyke, and the agglomerate may be a fault breccia. Even the proof of the felsite being of earlier age than the conglomerate would not now, if that conglomerate is post-Llanberis, prove it to be non-intrusive, and there remains only the fact that it is always followed, in regular succession, by its own debris, or what is considered to be such, and this seems sufficient.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 2} Op. cit., p. 315.

^{page 171 note 3} Q.J.G.S., vol. xli, pp. 74–79.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 1} Q.J.G.S., vol. xliv, pp. 271–290.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 2} In this same paper I endeavoured to support the Cambrian age of the felsite by finding its base. Therein I mistook a squeezed relic of a dyke for slate, with the result that the section, which I thought proved my point, proved nothing, either for or against it. in a later paper (F) Miss Raisin did me the service ot pointing out this mistake, as I have much pleasure in acknowledging.

^{page 172 note 3} Q.J.G.S., vol. xlvii, pp. 329–342.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 4} Ibid., Proc.

^{page 173 note 1} Q.J.G.S., vol. xlviii, pp. 243–262.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 2} Q.J.G.S., vol. xlix, pp. 441–466.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 3} Q.J.G.S., vol. L, pp. 578–602.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 1} I might add that this is not quite like the summit conglomerate, but such arguments are of little value.