Page:The Journal of geology (IA journalofgeology11893univ).pdf/320

Prefatory Note.—The summary of current pre-Cambrian literature beginning in this number, which will continue in following numbers, though probably not consecutively, is made upon somewhat different principles from those ordinarily used. The fundamental ideas of the plan are as follows: The summary proper and the comments are kept wholly separate, in this way preventing the confusion which frequently comes from a mingling of the two. In the summaries the original language of the author is used as far as practicable, although a single sentence may be taken from several sentences of the original. Where it is disadvantageous to use the original language other words are used. This often is necessary, because the language which is adapted to complete exposition is often not the best adapted to résumé. No quotations are made; for the ideas contained, whether in the original language or not, are wholly the ideas of the author, the whole is in fact really quoted. It might be thought that better results would be reached by indicating through quotations what words are taken from the original, but this method would necessitate an unpleasant and constant alternation from quoted to non-quoted phrases. As a result of experience with the two methods, the editor feels certain that he is able more accurately and fully, in a brief space, to represent the ideas of the original author by the method proposed, than by following the usual method.

The summaries are confined to articles or parts of articles pertaining to pre-Cambrian stratigraphy. Purely economic or petrological articles are not summarized unless they concern pre-Cambrian stratigraphy, in which case the substance of the conclusions are given, rather than a full account of the observations and the manner of reaching them. The abstracts have the defects of all summaries,—a certain amount of inaccuracy, because many modifying and qualifying facts can not be given, and because undue emphasis is placed upon the conclusions.

In many cases no comments are made. This does not imply that the editor agrees with the statements of the summaries. To criticize, qualify, or refute the statements of the authors in all cases of disagreement, would often