^{page 410 note 1} Bresson, , op. cit., p. 160.Google Scholar

^{page 411 note 1} The original record does not state very clearly the exact source of this specimen, and on that account the conclusion drawn from it has appeared to be of limited value, but fortunately the specimen itself is still in existence, and has been examined by Stuart-Menteath, who has questioned the identification in his “Pyrenean Geology,” and, more recently, by Bresson. The former has kindly supplied the following extract from Bresson's remarks in the recently published final part of the Bull. Soc. Géol. France, tome vi, which contains an account of an excursion of the Society to Gavarnie, and which has appeared since these notes were written:— “Mais l'examen de ce fossile a montre qu'il provient, d'après ses caractéres et d'après la composition de la gangue, du Coblenzien du pic de Mourgat, dont les éboulis récouvrent les pentes de la Prade et qu'il appartient au genre Phacops (Phacops aff. Potieri, Bayle).” In view of these views of Stuart-Menteath and Bresson the fossil evidently has no bearing on the question of the age of the schists.

^{page 412 note 1} Lacroix, , “Le Granite des Pyrénées et ses Phénomènes de Contact” (2^me mém.): Bull. Carte Géol. Fr., tome xi (1900), No. 71, p. 64.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 1} Bresson states that unaltered sediments also are enclosed in the granite.

^{page 415 note 1} Op. cit., pp. 34 et seq.

^{page 415 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 45–61.

^{page 415 note 3} It is interesting to note that Lacroix draws attention to the fact that in the inner part of the aureole of the Cauterets mass (Hercynian) the felspathised schists remain distinct from the igneous rock injected into them, whereas in the case of the Caillaouas mass they pass insensibly into it through highly micaceous, gneissose granite (pp. 64–5). The second mass thus resembles that of Gavarnie in what is probably a fundamental character.