When we see the untenable deductions to which even such an eminent man as Professor Frankland is led, in his new glacial doctrines, by basing a meteorological hypothesis upon the unproven basis of a central molten core in our planet, we cannot but be the more convinced of the necessity of reconsidering the theories and hypotheses which have been proposed to account for the origin and supposed early conditions of our earth. We have been called upon by geologists to reject the Mosaic cosmogony because its statements were not coincident with geological facts, and equally now are we called upon to examine what those asserted geological facts are, and whether the asserted superior theories of geologists are substantially correct, or whether they are one whit less mythical than the traditions of aboriginal peoples.

Because men saw what through their telescopes looked like luminous clouds, the elder Herschel and Laplace assumed the idea, still later urged by Nichols, that these celestial nebula were vast masses of ethereal vapours condensing into stars. Modern telescopes, however, constantly being increased in size and power, have resolved one after the other of these into wonderful star-systems—dust-clouds of brilliant suns. And has not every one of these far distant stars non-luminous planets and worlds rolling round it, as our earth and its sister-planets round our sun?

In 1833, T. N. Wetherell, Esq., of Highgate, discovered several Foraminifera in some London Clay taken from a well at the Lower Heath, on the south side of Hampstead; see Proceed. Geol. Soc. vol. ii. 1834, p. 93, and Transact. Geol. Soc. 2 ser. vol. v. p. 131. In plate ix., one of the two plates accompanying Mr. Wetherell's paper in the Geol. Transactions, these Foraminifera, with other small fossils from the clay, were figured by Mr. J. De C. Sowerby, by whose help also the determination of the fossils was made.

At page 135 of Mr. Wetherell's paper, the figured Foraminifera are referred to as “Nodosaria, pl. ix. figs. 3–7; Articulina, figs. 8–10; Marginulina, fig. 12; Kotalin, figs. 13–18; Cristellaria, fig. 19; Miliola, fig. 20.” Fig. 11, doubtfully referred to “Frondiculina,” is not a Foraminifer, but probably the cast of the palettes of a Teredo; a similar fossil is figured and thus designated by D'Archiac in the Mém. Soc. Géol. Franc. We have seen, in Mr. Wetherell's collection, the Foraminifera from the well above-mentioned, as well as others from the London Clay of Hampstead, Highgate, and Finchley. We possess a large series of picked specimens collected by Mr. John Purdue from the London Clay of the Copenhagen Fields, Islington, when the cuttings for the Great Northern Railway were being made; also some from the London Clay of Finchley, Chelsea (bed of the Thames), and Clapham; and a very fine suite of specimens from Wimbledon Common (out of the clay at about 100 feet in depth).

Two years ago, collecting matter for future use, in travelling over the Chalk-lands, I made, in the museums visited, such brief memoranda of striking fossils as might save the trouble of comparison with other specimens. The notes were never intended for publication in their present form, but as any more extended work on the subject is at present impossible, such of them as I have permission to print may be found useful to others engaged on similar work.

This series is part of the magnificent collection in the Brighton Museum; to the Committee of which I am indebted for the opportunity of making use of them.

Conical, twice as high as wide. Many-whorled; whorls flat and narrow, being fou r times as wide as high. Each whorl is ornamented on the upper and lower sutural margins by a very numerous row of closely-placed tubercles. The anterior row has the tubercles elongated longitudinally; those of the posterior row are more bead-like. Connecting these rows are half as many again narrow, sharp, upright ribs. The tubercles and ribs become not only actually, but relatively much more numerous as the shell enlarges; they are crossed horizontally by a number of (about ten) fine spiral striae.

“Quid magis est saxo durum ? quid mollius unda ?

Dura tamen molli saxa cavantur aqua.”

The condition of Central Scotland during the long period represented by the Secondary formations is involved in darkness. On the east and west coasts of Scotland rocks of Secondary age occur north of the Grampians, but of the physical history of Central Scotland during the time these rocks were deposited, we know nothing. From the time of the deposition of our Upper Coal-beds, or, it may be, of some Permian Sandstones, up till the time when the whole island was locked fast in one immense mantle of ice, we are almost entirely ignorant of what was going on in that part of the country which lies between the Grampians and the Forth. And the man who shall decipher for us the physical geography of that period, and reveal to us the old surface of that district, with its vegetation and animal productions, prior to the time of the Boulder Clay, will have rendered no small service to the cause of Scottish geology.

But although we have not as yet been able to trace the old surface of the land, we are not altogether without data to guide us in our researches. One thing is clear and certain,—a great change was taking place over the whole face of this region.