Page:The Journal of geology (IA journalofgeology21894univers).pdf/69
Much time and ink have been wasted in discussing the claims of alternative stratigraphic names. In many instances controversies arise over questions of fact, but there are also numerous cases in which the facts are well understood, and individuals disagree only as to the bearing of the facts on the questions of nomenclature. Opinions differ so widely as to the principles which should determine the selection of names that facts which some regard as conclusive appear to others not at all pertinent. The road to ultimate peace lies through a war of principles; and the valuable controversy is one in which the fundamental postulates of the contestants are exposed. Holding this view of the general question, I would be understood as joining in the discussion of the term "Newark" only because a principle of stratigraphic nomenclature appears to be involved.
In a recent article B. S. Lyman says:
"For those rocks have, from their conformability throughout, and their predominant color, and a comparative lack of fossils through a great part of them, been commonly lumped together as only a single group, formation, or system, under the general name of New Red, or Triassic, or Jurassico-Triassic, or Rhætic. Nearly forty years ago, with the bold assurance born of ignorance, perhaps quite pardonable at that time, the special name of Newark group was proposed for the whole lot, from one of its most striking local economic features, though otherwise an extremely subordinate one, and even economically perhaps inferior to the Richmond coal; and latterly there has been an effort to revive the name, long after it had fallen into well-merited oblivion."[1]
I am one of those who have seconded Russell's proposal to revive the name "Newark,"[2] and despite the brief argument
55