REMARKS ON THE TACONIC CONTROVERSY.

BY E. BILLINGS, F.G.S.

TABLE of the Silurian formations of New York and Canada as recognized previously to 1859.

UPPER SILURIAN.

16 Lower Helderberg.

15 Onondaga.

14 Guelph.

13 Niagara.

12 Clinton.

11 Medina.

10 Oneida.

LOWER SILURIAN.

9 Grey sandstone.

8 Hudson River. 7 Utica,

6 Trenton.

5 Black River.

4 Birdseye.

The Red Sandrock of Vermont was originally placed about here by Dr. Emmons, followed by Adams, Rogers, and others. It was afterwards referred to a horizon near the Potsdam by Dr. Emmons and E. Billings.

Position of the Taconic rocks and Quebec group according to Prof. Hall and others. At first adopted, but rejected by the Canadian Survey in 1860.

3 Chazy.

2 Calciferous.

I Potsdam.

}

Approximate horizon of the Quebec group as decided by Sir W. E. Logan & E. Billings in 1860

Position of the Red Sandrock of Vermont (nearly)according to Dr. Emmons & E. Billings TACONIC SYSTEM. = Position of the Taconic System according to Dr. Emmons.

It frequently happens that a science, such for instance as that of geology, possesses a sort of an aristocracy, consisting of the most talented, learned, active and influential of its devotees. The views of this body of men, on any difficult problem that may present itself, are usually regarded as conclusive, and are quietly adopted by the less distinguished members. Indeed, the opinion of any one of these latter, would be scarcely listened to, provided it should happen to be contrary to the established creed

of the dominant party. As a general rule the leading men are right, and yet it will sometimes happen that they are wrong. One of the most remarkable instances on record, is that of the great question in American Geology, relating to the age of the rocks which Dr. Emmons called "The Taconic Systein." Upon this question nearly all of the leading geologists of North America arranged themselves upon one side, and, as it turned out after more than twenty years discussion, on the wrong side. Although they were wrong, yet so overwhelming was the weight of their authority, that for nearly a quarter of a century, Dr. Emmons stood almost alone. He had a few followers, but they were not men who had made themselves sufficiently conspicuous. and influential to contend successfully against an opinion that was supported by all the great geologists of the continent in one. compact body. In consequence of this powerful opposition, the Taconic theory gradually sank so low in reputation, that it was at length considered to be scarcely worthy of the notice of a scientific man.

During the last thirteen years, a great revolution of opinion has occurred with regard to the views of Dr. Emmons. Although not entirely adopted, they are now considered to be, in a general way, well founded. The opposite theory, that all of those rocks which he placed in the Taconic System are above the Potsdam sandstone, instead of below it, as he maintained, is completely exploded. It is at this moment dead, more so than was the Taconic theory in 1859, the year in which the subject was reopened. As I understand it at present, some of the Taconic rocks are certainly more ancient than the Potsdam, others may be of the same age, and perhaps some of them more recent. The details are not yet worked out, and judging from the manner in which the strata are folded, broken up and thrown out of their original position by almost every kind of geological disarrangement, I venture to say that no man, at present living, will ever see a perfect map of the Taconic region.

The theory, that the Taconic rocks belonged to the Hudson River group, was an enormous error, that originated in the Geological Survey of New York, and thence found its way into the Canadian Survey. No doubt the mistake was due, in the first instance, to the extraordinary arrangement of the rocks, the more ancient strata being elevated and often shoved over the more recent. Thus, without the aid of paleontology, it was im

possible to assert positively that they were not, what they appeared to be, of the age of the Hudson River formation. The attitude of the strata, together with their numerous disturbances, might be explained physically, so as to meet either theory. If, for instance, the trilobites of Vermont and Point Levis, had turned out to be of the age of the fauna of the Hudson River group, the rocks would be to this day called Hudson River. There is no apparent physical arrangement to contradict this view, but rather to support it. I do not consider that originally either the physical geologists, or the paleontologists, were much to blame. With regard to the first, when a geologist finds one rock overlying another, he is obliged to accept that as the natural arrangement. Then as to the fossils, with all our increased knowledge, I doubt that any good paleontologist of the present day, would feel himself justified in deciding against physical ap pearances, on the few imperfect specimens figured in 1847, on pl. 67, Pal. N. Y., vol. I. Be this as it may the object of this note is to show that while the error originated in New York, it was corrected by the Geological Survey of Canada. Dr. Hunt, in his published Address to the American Association, in August last, indirectly associates Prof. Hall with me in the rectification of the mistake, whereas neither Prof. Hall nor Dr. Hunt contributed any aid whatever, but on the contrary, opposed the change that has been made to the utmost. In this paper I desire simply to claim what belongs to myself, and to do justice to some others, who assisted in the work. I shall discuss the subject under the following heads:

1.-The Vermont Trilobites.

In 1859, I had some correspondence with Col. E. Jewett, then residing at Albany, N.Y., on the subject of an exchange of fossils. This gentleman is widely known for the extensive collections he has made, and I have also found him to be a good sound geologist, although he has never published much on the science. It appears that, during the numerous excursions he had made over the disputed territory, he had arrived at the conclusion from his own observations that Dr. Emmons was, upon the whole, correct in his views. He had, on several occasions, urged me to take the matter up and investigate it, but this I could not do for want both of time and of facts. On the 5th of April, 1859, he wrote me a letter, in which he gave an account of

what specimens he could send in exchange. After mentioning several species, he says:

"I can spare a good specimen of what Prof. Hall describes as Olenus asiphoides, which I got from the upturned slates of Vermont, twenty-five miles north of Burlington and four miles from Lake Champlain. Emmons declares it below the New York system. It is singular that no other fossils of any kind are found in the locality which has furnished several of this trilobite."

Shortly afterwards the trilobite was received by me at Montreal, and I was much surprised to find it a true primordial form, but not an Olenus. It seemed to me to be more nearly allied to Paradoxides and it appears also that I communicated this opinion to Col. Jewett, for I have a letter from him dated 11th of May, 1859, in which he says:

66 Should you have any doubts of the trilobite sent you being a true Paradoxides, I will send you others which display more graphically the characters."

After studying the fossil for several days, I showed it to the officers of our Survey, and pointed out that its primordial aspect, indicated a horizon far below the Hudson River group. and perhaps even below the Potsdam sandstone. The subject was much discussed, and Sir W. E. Logan proceeded, soon afterwards, to examine the geological structure of the region in which the trilobite had been found. Thus the re-investigation of the Taconic question was commenced by the Canadian Survey in the spring of 1859. I consider this a very important step, because, for many years, the views of Dr. Emmons had been regarded as constituting a theory so utterly baseless, that none of the leading geologists could be brought to think it worth a single day's work in the field. Sir W. E. Logan, however, was not of that opinion, and after seeing the trilobite, took to the field at Although he did not, at first, find any good reason to depart from what had been considered, for more than twenty years, the true arrangement of the rocks in question, yet he continued the investigation, whenever his other duties would permit, until his final decision was given, on the last day of December, 1860, just twenty months after the trilobite was received by

once.

me.