the question of whether there are or are not localities in Germany where the Zechstein passes upwards into a red rock, which forms no true part of the Bunter Sandstein of the Trias, we have only to look to the environs of Dresden, on the one hand, and to Lower Silesia on the other, to see the inapplicability of the word "Dyas" to this group.

Near the capital of Saxony, Dr Geinitz himself pointed out to me that the Roth-liegende is there divided into two very dissimilar parts; and these, if added to the limestone which is there interpolated, or to the true Zechstein of other places, constitute a Trias. Again, Beyrich, in his Map of Lower Silesia, has divided the vast Roth-liegende of those mountains into Lower and Upper, the two embracing eight subdivisions according to that author.

In repeating, then, that the word "Permian" was not originally proposed with the view of affixing to this natural group any number of component parts, but simply as a convenient short term to define the Uppermost Paleozoic group, I refer all geologists to the very words I used in the year 1841, when the name was first suggested. In speaking of the structure of Russia, I thus wrote: "The Carboniferous system is surmounted to the east of the Volga by a vast series of beds of marls, schists, limestones, sandstones, and conglomerates, to which I propose to give the name of "Permian System;" because, although this series represents as a whole the Lower New Red Sandstone (Rothe-todte-liegende) and the Magnesian Limestone or Zechstein, yet it cannot be classed exactly, whether by the succession of the strata or their contents, with either of the German or British subdivisions of this age.".

After pointing to the governments of Russia over which such Permian rocks ranged, I added: "Of the fossils of this system, some undescribed species of Producti might seem to connect the Permian with the Carboniferous era; and other shells, together with fishes and saurians, link it more closely to the period of the Zechstein, whilst its peculiar plants appear to constitute a Flora of a type intermediate between the epochs of

* See also "Siluria," 2d edit. p. 343.

† Phil. Mag. xix. p. 419.

the New Red Sandstone or Trias and the Coal-measures. Hence it is that I have ventured to consider this series as worthy of being regarded as a system.'

In subsequent years, baving personally examined this group in the typical tracts of Germany as well as of Britain, I felt more than ever assured that, from the great local variations of mineral succession of the group, the word "Permian," which might apply to any number of mineral subdivisions, was the most comprehensive and best term which could be used, the more so as it was in harmony with the principle on which the term Silurian had been adopted.

66

Apart from the question of the substitution of the new word Dyas" for the older name "Permian," I take this opportunity of expressing my regret that some German geologists are returning to the use of the term "Grauwacke Formation," as if years of hard labour had not been successfully bestowed in elaborating and establishing the different Palæozoic groups, all of which, even including the Lower Carboniferous deposits, were formerly confusedly grouped under the one lithological term of the Grauwacke Formation."

66

Respecting as I do the labours of the German geologists who have distinguished themselves in describing the order of the strata and the fossil contents of the group under consideration, I claim no other merit on this point for my colleagues de Verneuil and von Keyserling and myself, than that of having propounded twenty years ago the name of "Permian" to embrace in one natural series those subformations for which no collective name had been adopted. Independently, therefore, of the reasons above given, which show the inapplicability of the word "Dyas," I trust that, in accordance with those rules of priority which guide naturalists, the word "Permian" will be maintained in geological classification.

* In my last edition of "Siluria” I have spoken of the Permian as the Uppermost Palæozoic group, but have not deemed it a system by comparison with the vast deposits of Carboniferous, Devonian, and Silurian age.

79

Address delivered at the Opening of the Session of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, on Monday, 2d December 1861, by the Very Rev. Dean RAMSAY, LL.D., Vice-President of the Society.

It is with no affectation of humility, it is with no mock modesty that I earnestly bespeak your kind indulgence for the discharge of the duty to which I have been called this evening. My diffidence in this matter arises from no want of interest in the work assigned to me, but from knowing how much I lack that extent of knowledge and that degree of experience which seem to be required for the position in which I am placed, and for such an audience as I have the honour to address. I find different scientific associations adopt different rules. In some cases the secretary makes, in name of the council, a general report of the whole proceedings during the past year; in fact, very much in the business style of the secretary of a railway company. In some cases, the address is delivered on the anniversary of the society by the president, who makes a distribution of its medals and prizes previous to his vacating his office.

The Royal Society of Edinburgh has only of late years adopted the practice of an address from the chair on the first meeting of the Session, with notices of the deceased members during the year; the medals and prizes being distributed usually towards the end of the Session. The address on the first meeting of last Session was delivered by our recently elected President, the Duke of Argyll; and it was well observed on that occasion, I think by Lord Neaves, that the address itself was the best proof of the Society having chosen their President well and wisely.

As to the statistics of the Society, I may mention that eight members have died during the past year :

Rt. Hon. The Earl of Aberdeen.
Robert Bell, Esq.

Rt. Hon. Lord Campbell.
John Gordon, Esq, of Cairnbulg.

Professor More.

Sir James M. Riddell, Bart.
The Rev. Dr James Robertson.
E. D. Sandford, Esq.

Sixteen new members were elected during the past year :

In glancing backwards on the proceedings of the last year, it is quite manifest that there has been no falling off in zeal and diligence amongst its members. Besides other business in connection with the objects for which the Society was embodied, thirty-three papers were read at the ordinary meetings. Seven were on subjects connected with Geology; nine with Natural History or Physics; seven with Chemistry and Chemical Analyses; four with Magnetism or Electricity; the rest were of a miscellaneous or biographical character. Without noting particular papers, it is quite enough to say of these communications that they are the result of deep study and careful experiment; that they are fully in accordance with the high and advanced state of the several sciences to which each of them belongs. The only regret I have (a regret which I cannot help expressing) is, that we have not more papers of a literary character. Such papers would be quite in accordance with the original purpose and object of the Society. They would make a pleasing variety, I believe we might almost say a relaxation of attention towards the subjects with which our evenings are generally occupied, and (perhaps this is my chief recommendation) they would call forth contributions from some of our members who have not given themselves to the study of physical sciences, but whose present inaction, session after session, we cannot but deplore. We regret to think that we have not occasionally papers on such questions as Moral Philosophy, Political Economy, History, Classics, or Belles-Lettres, from Fellows of the Society, who, we are sure, could

execute them so ably and so gracefully. The productions of the last Session, and the attendance at the evening meetings, indicate, then, a continued activity and interest in the cause of science. And we notice this fact as supplying the answer to an objection which we have heard raised against the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and against other associations of the same character, viz., that their day had gone by; that they were well suited to a period when there was little or no scientific current literature, but that their place has been superseded by periodicals—that is, by scientific magazines and journals, to which men of science will now prefer sending their papers, rather than to the less popular and less known Transactions of societies. Experience has proved the objection altogether fallacious. Societies have done for science and literature what could have been accomplished in no other way. There is the advantage of personal intercourse at their meetings, whether ordinary or extraordinary, of funds for prizes,-of libraries, and of the general prestige of men of high place and high reputation being associated in bodies under sanction of Royal patronage. The Transactions of home and foreign societies would themselves form a scientific library of considerable extent. The library of the Royal Society of London now exceeds 40,000 volumes, chiefly on scientific subjects, and in mathematical works is surpassingly rich. At no time were such

associations, either in this country or the continent of Europe, more active and more efficient. No doubt this very activity and efficiency have produced a change, which, to a certain extent, must affect the old scientific institutions. The change to which I refer is due not only to the great increase of the number of such institutions, but to the great subdivision of the labour in scientific inquiries. The Royal Society of London was founded in 1663. Its general object was the promotion of Science and Literature. The vast number of illustrious names connected with that great Society, and the extent of research manifested in its Transactions, amounting to 200 volumes, are well known to all whom I address. Other similar institutions were formed in London in subsequent years. The Royal Society of Edinburgh followed, and many provincial associations throughout England. Of these the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, instituted 1781, has been long distinguished. Dr Percival was one of its early supporters. His papers, and communications from Mr Dalton, Dr Henry, and others, have ever been NEW SERIES.-VOL. XV. NO. I.—JAN. 1862.

L