No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
When a case is hopeless, there are two recognized ways of ignoring the fact, and yet of appearing to reply to an adversary. One is the legal device commonly known as“ abusing the plaintiff's attorney,‘ the other is the equally familiar method of replying to something that the opposite party did not say. The latter has been preferred by my friend Mr. Howorth in his paper on “The Absence of Glacial Phenomena in large parts of Western Asia and Eastern Europe,” published in the February Number of the Geological Magazine, pp. 54–64, as the following instances will show.
page 161 1 note It is interesting-, in connexion with these fine-grained ash-slates, to refer to the “altered ashes“ in the contact-zone of the Shap granite, as described by Harker and Marr. The intimate mixture of chlorite, mica, and quartz gives rise to the much larger mosaic of quartz and biotite. The quartz is converted into much larger individualized grains. The sericitic mica is absorbed into the biotite, as is so usually the case when sedimentary slates are altered by granite-contact. The finely-disseminated garnet (if originally present in the ashes at Shap) is apparently also re-absorbed during these processes, as I have sought for it in vain in many Shap sections.
In the mosaic of these Shap contact-rocks felspar is sometimes seen, sometimes not, which fact rather lends support to some of the inferences 1 have drawn as to the interpretation of the analytical results.
page 165 1 note They are probably of later introduction than the Mammals with Oriental affinities.
page 166 1 note In my last contribution to this question in the August Number of this Magazine, there is a mistake, that I must have overlooked in the proof, on p. 373. I wrote: “Surely to say that “a movement has been distributed over the Tertiary and post-Tertiary period and a great portion is of post-Pliocene date,” is not the same as to say that the whole movement, or even the greater part of the movement, is post-Pleistocene.” The last word has been by mistake printed post-Pliocene.