In this same great valley there are several other conical masses of injected rock (one, I observed, was composed of compact greenstone), some of which are not connected, as far as is apparent, with any line of dike; whilst others are obviously thus connected. Of these dikes, three or four great lines stretch across the valley in a N.E. and S.W. direction, parallel to that one connecting the Asses’ Ears, Lot’s Wife, and probably Lot. The number of these masses of injected rock is a remarkable feature in the geology of St. Helena. Besides those just mentioned, and the hypothetical one beneath Flagstaff Hill, there is Little Stony-top and others, as I have reason to believe, at the Man-and-Horse, and at High Hill. Most of these masses, if not all of them, have been injected subsequently to the last volcanic eruptions from the central crater. The formation of conical bosses of rock on lines of fissure, the walls of which are in most cases parallel, may probably be attributed to inequalities in the tension, causing small transverse fissures, and at these points of intersection the edges of the strata would naturally yield, and be easily turned upwards. Finally, I may remark, that hills of phonolite everywhere are apt to assume singular and even grotesque shapes, like that of Lot (D’Aubuisson in his “Traite de Geognosie” tome 2 page 540 particularly remarks that this is the case.): the peak at Fernando Noronha offers an instance; at St. Jago, however, the cones of phonolite, though tapering, have a regular form. Supposing, as seems probable, that all such hillocks or obelisks have originally been injected, whilst liquified, into a mould formed by yielding strata, as certainly has been the case with Lot, how are we to account for the frequent abruptness and singularity of their outlines, compared with similarly injected masses of greenstone and basalt? Can it be due to a less perfect degree of fluidity, which is generally supposed to be characteristic of the allied trachytic lavas? SUPERFICIAL DEPOSITS.