Abstract
We have here a book, very prettily illustrated by photographs; but the text is not in keeping with the author's daring statement that “geology is, of all concrete science studies, most exact in its observations and conclusions.” The loss of land at Dunwich (p. 14) should not be ascribed to subsidence; faults (p. 18) do not imply that “the two parts are pitched at different angles”; limestones are said to be “generally combined with mineral matter”; Radiolaria are photographed in one of the admirable plates as “flinty shell remains of foraminifera”; and in another plate a very mixed assemblage of fossils, including halysites and Fenestella, is attributed to the Old Red Sandstone. “Interlocking teeth” are given as a characteristic of Labyrinthodon, and Tyrannosaurus is said to have preyed upon the mammoth. We must not dilate on the reappearance of Eozoon and the “Laurentian system,” or on the “boreal climate” of the Trias (p. 56). If we interpret his remarks on “sauroid fishes” as referring to Sauripterus, the author has been diligent in his reading, and we must regret that he has shown so little regard for exactitude in “observations and conclusions.”
Rocks and Fossils and How to Identify Them.
By J. H. Crabtree. Pp. 63. (London: The Epworth Press; J. Alfred Sharp, n.d.) 1s. 9d. net.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
C., G. Rocks and Fossils and How to Identify Them . Nature 110, 74 (1922). https://doi.org/10.1038/110074c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/110074c0