magnesian limestone.

4. Older alpine limestone. 5. Alpine limestone, with subordinate saliferous deposites. 6. Younger alpine limestone. 7. Tertiary formations.

In regard to the central primary axis, we have but one remark to make, viz. that its termination is not distinctly given by our authors. The primary Alps, that appear to sink out of sight between Wien-Neustadt and Oedenburg, in Hungary, actually continue under the tertiary soil, and the valley of the Danube, and crop out again in the Neitra Comitat, to the east and west of that town. From this point, they extend to the NW. and NE. of Neusohl; and, lastly, they unite with the chain of Prassiva, Kralova, Hola, &c. The granitic group north of Presburg, as that of the Tatra, are only isolated portions of this chain. The central alpine chain would thus terminate geographically near to Vienna, but geologically in Northern Hungary. It is separated from the Carpathian primary chain, either because one part may not have been elevated to the same height as the rest, or because a partial sinking down has buried that portion. On the other hand, the primary chains of the Marmarosh and Transylvania, are evidently not in the same direction as the similar Alpine chain, and owe their origin to upheavings that have taken place in totally different lines of direction.

This is the opportunity to defend myself against a reproach of Messrs Murchison and Sedgwick. They accuse me of pushing the spirit of generalization too far, of bringing under comparison formations widely separated from each other in the Alpine and Carpathian chains, sometimes by the help of mineralogical characters, and almost unassisted by a single organic remain. If I am not mistaken, we might retort, and with more justice, on these gentlemen, when we find them intermingling the geology of Carinthia and Salzburg; but our defence will not rest on such criticisms. We have already proved, that the primary Alpine chains do continue in the northern Carpathians; and hence it is quite natural to expect in these last named mountains also, the continuation of the Alpine calcareous chain. This last fact is generally acknowledged; and I doubt not if these gentlemen had visited the Carpathians, they would have been the first to assent to it. It is to be understood that we do not mean to say that small calcareous deposites are placed along

the primary Carpathian chain; for this is by no means the fact; but we repeat it, that, as in the Alps, from Vienna and Presburg, to the east of the Tatra, there is an uninterrupted calcareous band, which is often separated from the primary hills by a system of reddish arenaceous rocks. Besides, this alpine limestone is not much covered by more recent calcareous deposites, nor has it been so much thrown up, as to shew, as in the Alps, its whole body, and to allow us to see, in this calcareous chain, also the subordinate arenaceous beds or masses.

Our adversaries seem to imagine, not only that all our opinions in regard to the Carpathians are more fanciful than correct, but they also appear to insinuate, that we may have mistaken for alpine limestone some other calcareous deposite, which we could only have examined in a few spots, and that we afterwards united the whole according to our fancy. Happily, however, our map of the north-east part of Hungary, presented last April to the Geological Society of London, affords proofs of our local observations, united with those of Messrs Lill and Beudant, and which can at any time be verified. The calcareous alpine zone, which is coloured on the map, exists really in nature, and extends uninterruptedly from Vienna to Tatra. Every one will be able, on inspecting a good map, to see that the numerous localities where we studied the formation, and which we shall enumerate, were sufficient to allow us, even without the aid of organic remains, to decide that alpine limestone exists equally in Tatra as in the Alps. If it is ever allowable to make use of the witticism of Mohs, viz. that, as we cannot determine the species or genus of a tree from the birds that sit on it, consequently fossils cannot shew the age of a deposite, which must be determined by position and mineral contents, it is in this case. Indeed, if there be a continuation of the limestone ridges of the Alps and that of the Tatra, what necessity is there for taking into consideration the fossil organic remains? even if Trilobites occur in the Tatra alpine limestone, and Bacculites in that of Vienna, if both rocks form one single continuous mass, if they have the same position, they, in our opinion, are of the same age. Now, the Vienna or Baden alpine limestone reappears on the eastern side of the tertiary plain of that city, viz. at the distance of six or eight miles, OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1830.

B

at Wimpassing, afterwards between Teusch-Altenberg, Edelsthal, and Hainburg, from where it crosses the Danube to Theben, and, lying along the granitic ridge, it is found again at Ballenstein, at Borostyanko, at Pernek, at Breitenbrunn, at Blasenstein, Elesko, and to the east of Hradystie. From that village, and from Nadas, it extends to Csejta and Neustadt, upon the borders of the Wag near Bohuslariez, around Beczko and Trentschin, at Orecho, Sztrezezenitz, and between Hrabooka and Pucho. It forms the highest hills between the valleys of the Wag and the Nyitra, and is covered partly by secondary and tertiary rocks, a fact well known from the observations of Beudant, and confirmed by those of Lill. After having followed this formation, step by step, we had still an opportunity of studying it more to the north at Preeven, Illova, Warin, Bela, and Tyrhova. We saw it also extending behind Kubin, Chlebna, and Habowka; and a branch terminates on the northern side of the Tatra, from the west of Koscielisko to Zifjar; in the mean time another unites itself with the limestone south of the Tatra, and of the superior valley of the Wag, and extends to Newsohl, where we saw it on a former tour, and where others have described it.

It is true that, in this extensive calcareous chain, we observed fossil organic remains only between Warin and Tishova, around the Tatra, and in the country of Neusohl; but the same is the case with the Austrian Alps; and the magnesian rocks, full of small rents, seem far less favourable to the preservation of petrifactions than the complete dolomites. On the other hand, these fossils correspond with those of the limestone of the Alps, being belemnites, certain ammonites, certain smooth or folded terebratulites, encrinites, and zoophytes. In this way we have the identity and continuance of the same formation with the same fossils, and that from Vienna to the Tatra. Now, we ask (Mr Lill and I), are not we entitled to compare some sections of the Carpathian limestone ridge with others taken among the calcareous alpine chain, and to use in this way Carpathian localities, or sections where the strata have been but slightly deranged, to clear up in the Alps the nature of tracts, where great catastrophes or upheavings have disturbed and confused the true series of deposites? The answer to our question cannot be

doubtful. If our adversaries, ignorant of the Carpathians, refuse to adopt our opinion, we beg them first to visit the country in question, for, without a knowledge of the country from examination, if they continue to deny what is obvious to us and others, they must not be astonished if we retort against their conviction and our own also, that the magnesian limestone, and the red marl of Durham, is not the same deposite as that which receives the same names in Nottinghamshire and Somersetshire. In both cases the reasoning would be absurd.

We rejoice; on the other hand, to agree fully with our authors respecting their mode of considering the arenaceous reddish system below the alpine limestone. It is well known that we, and also Professor Buckland and these gentlemen, compared it with the red marl, and even with the keuper, and that we endeavoured to find out in the thick beds of limestone, which are sometimes ferriferous, in the gypsum and the rauchwacke, some representations of the ancient secondary formations which are so well exposed in the southern Alps, and so well characterised from the Lago Majore to the Cadore. There is a great difference in the composition of the Alps on opposite sides. Upon the one side, the secondary formations, nearly unaltered, support the colossus of Jura limestone and chalk; while, on the other, the latter formations, with many peculiarities, and often with apparently strange fossils for such deposites, rest upon a series of aggregates, almost unknown elsewhere in Europe, and which are connected with the primary system. That union of limestone, containing immense masses of sparry iron-ore, with arenaceous talco-quartzose slates, is a Gordian knot, which can only be cut by our theory of igneous subterranean alterations.

In regard to the inferior alpine limestone, these gentlemen have been very fortunate in discovering in Carinthia the Gryphæa incurva in the dolomite of Bleiberg, thus rendering it a lias limestone. Notwithstanding the singularity of this fact, and that not more than two or three casts of the shells were found, we admit it. As this characteristic fossil of the lias is not mentioned by them as occurring on the opposite side of the Alps, we question if they are right in admitting the lias in the Salzburg Alps. If this deposite exists in the Alps of Dauphiny and Savoy, and even perhaps of Western Switzerland, the dark

limestone so classified terminates in the Voralberg, and from thence to Tatra we observed nothing like it. Further, we find only predominating varieties of light coloured alpine limestone, which also exist in the Western Alps, or the magnesian limestones and the dolomites. Here and there at Werfen, between Abtenau and Radstadt, the undermost alpine limestone hides some small masses of dark coloured limestone, or of greyish magnesian limestone, which also exist as subordinate beds in the arenaceous red-coloured system; but it is by no means certain that these masses represent the lias.

On the other hand, we, as has been done by our authors, compared the whole alpine limestone with the oolite series, and even with the uppermost members of the series, and its saliferous subordinate masses appeared to be nothing more than accidents of the Jurassic subdivisions, not far from the Oxford and Kimmeridge clay. Their descriptions of the salt of Hall, Hallein, and Ischel are correct, and correspond with what has been very often published by others. Nevertheless, the peculiar cellular rauchwackelike limestone near the salt of Hall escaped their notice; and the valley of Lavatsch behind these masses would have fully repaid, by its fossils, the trouble of a visit. At Hallein they appear not to have sufficiently distinguished the two or three great bodies of rock, where sandstone or limestone alternately predominate, and they have neglected to give the exact place of the orthoceratite limestone.

We observe with pleasure, in their article on the newer alpine limestone, that they place the saliferous arenaceous fucoidal deposite of Hallein under that kind of limestone which forms the Untersberg; this position, and the transition of these two rocks into each other, is the discovery of our excellent friend Mr Lill von Lilienbach. This same formation underlies, according to our authors, the hippurite limestone, covered by gypseous marls, nummulite rocks, sandstones and marls, with Gossau fossils. It is already known that they make the Gossau marls tertiary, and that the Untersberg would offer an isolated, or, if they choose, a second example of the transition from the chalk formation to the tertiary. This is the great point of controversy, which we shall consider in a subsequent part of this communication. On the other hand, they misplace the coal mines of the Alps of