The composite granodiorite batholith of the Kopaonik Mountains forms one of the more southerly members of the peri-Adriatic tonalitic intrusions. In the area discussed in this paper it intrudes a series of sedimentary rocks which range from dominantly calcareous to pelitic types. Metamorphism of these rocks has produced crystalline limestones, skarns, and calc-silicate hornfelses, which grade downwards into mica-, amphibole-, epidote-, and locally cordierite-bearing rocks. The pelitic and amphibole-bearing hornfelses are in immediate proximity to the batholith on the surface. The amphibole-bearing types are mainly confined to a relatively small area, well within the zone of high-grade metamorphism and overlying the southerly pitching nose of the intrusion. With them are associated hornfelses which carry porphyroblasts of albitic feldspar. It appears that the persistence of the amphibole and the development of these feldspar porphyroblasts may have been caused by hydrous and probably sodic emanations which permeated the sediments above and ahead of the advancing igneous mass.

During the recent construction of a new highway linking Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks a number of deep cuttings have had to be made in the Little Belt Mountains. Some nine miles south-south-east of the once prosperous mining town of Neihart the road crosses the divide at King's Hill (7,400 feet O.D.) and, passing from Cascade County into Meagher County, starts a long and gradual descent into Sheep Creek. Along the side of the creek for a distance of several miles a series of sections reveal that the country rock is here cut by igneous intrusions with interesting contact-metamorphic effects. The mineralogy of the contact rocks has already been described by the author (l): the present communication describes the field relations and considers some problems of paragenesis.

The purpose of the present note is to give a synopsis of the most important differences between assemblages of small foraminifera from rocks of Upper Cretaceous, Eogene, and Neogene age respectively, in the Middle Eastern region.

MOST workers on fossils at the present day try to conform to the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature,1 but there are cases in which even the most conscientious palaeontologist may be in doubt as to whether any given article or recommendation of the International Code can justifiably be applied. Some workers, I may add, are forgetting that this code should be a good servant, and must not be allowed to become a bad master; again, while others are in favour of applying to the International Commission for standardization of almost every problem, many palaeontologists feel that the rules should not be relaxed except in very special cases. It seems to me of general interest to discuss some doubtful cases; for future workers may be guided by our difficulties, and the overworked Commission will eventually benefit by the discussion.