1),

ascended Yakoun river to Yakoun lake, and crossed thence by
trail to Skidegate inlet. Thus the examination embraced only
the coast-line, and one traverse across the island. Two maps
accompany the report!, one of the whole island on a scale of 1
inch to 4 miles, and one of a portion of southern Graham island
onascale of 1inchto1 mile. Owing to the incompleteness of the
information available these maps are far from accurate.

Ells divided the rocks found on Graham island under four
heads:

I. Post Tertiary: including sands, gravels, and clays.
II. Tertiary: comprising shales, sandstone, and conglomerate with
beds of lignite, fossiliferous.

III. Cretaceous: shales, sandstone, and conglomerate, with thin lime-
stones and with large deposits of bituminous coal which some-
times passes into anthracite; also fossiliferous.

IV. Igneous rocks: comprising pre-Cretaceous and Tertiary.

Ells’ maps differ from Dawson’s in that they correctly
represent the ‘“‘agelomerates and lower sandstones’ ’(subdivisions
D and E of the latter) as pre-Cretaceous. No clear statement
of the relations of these rocks is given in the report, however.
Ells considered the Tertiary volcanic rocks of the Slatechuck
range to be pre-Cretaceous, and so represented them on his
maps.

CLAPP’S REPORT.2

C. H. Clapp’s report is based on a reconnaissance across
Graham island in August, 1912, which lasted seventeen days.
His interpretation of the relations of the various formations is
almost wholly correct and, considering the short time at his
disposal for mapping, the diagram map accompanying his report
substantially accurate.

Clapp gave locality names to the subdivisions of the Cre-
taceous made by Dawson, as may be seen from the following
table, taken from his report.

1 Ells, R. W., Geol. Survey, Can., Ann. Rept., vol. XVI,.1906, pp. 1B-46B.
2Clapp, C. H., Geol. Surv., Can., Sum. Rept., 1912, pp. 12-40.