Lucas Barrett biography Barrett work. It was submitted in December 1859, two months before Barrett paper on the Cretaceous rocks was read to the Geological Society in London, so to the Jamaican authorities it would appear that it was Sawkins, not Barrett, who st recognized the presence in the island of Cretaceous rocks and fossils. The report on the eastern part of St. Thomas-in-the-East, submitted to the governor early in 1860, which we know to have been a cooperative effort, was also signed by Sawkins alone. It would be interesting to know how the astute older man inenced his young chief to agree to this. According to Woodward, Barrett showed little inclination for writing, which would make Sawkins persuasions more acceptable. In thus allowing Sawkins to steal his thunder, Barrett was doubtless showing admirable tact in his dealings with his assistant, but deplorable tactics in his dealings with the Jamaican authorities. Barrett did not possess the faculty, attributed by Sir John Flett to De la Beche, of fathoming the ofial mind and of knowing what arguments were likely to carry weight with administrative persons (Flett, 1937, p. 28). According to Sir John this is really a natural gift which many scienti men completely lack. Sawkins, whose claim to be called a scienti man is questionable, had far more knowledge of the world and of the ways of men and ofials than the youthful Barrett. He knew that the man who signs the principal reports will be regarded as more important than the man who merely signs an appendix, no matter how masterly and valuable it may be. Sawkins�claim for higher remuneration could well have been due not only to a natural desire for more money, but also to a wish for a rate of pay more nearly equal to that of his chief. In Trinidad, the difference between the emoluments of the director and the assistant geologist had been about 280 per annum. Sawkins obtained a reduction of this difference to 100. No doubt he knew that, to ofialdom, as represented by the successive governors of Jamaica, a man status would be proportional to his rate of pay. Furthermore, these administrative persons would not appreciate or understand the difence, modesty, and self-abnegation which were so characteristic of Barrett; it would have been wiser if he had approached them with an air of self-importance, even of pomposity, for they would accept a man at his own valuation. It was perhaps inevitable that Sawkins should feel some disappointment, a sense of frustration, perhaps bitterness against the authorities who had failed to promote him, and had put a very young man over him; but he had no excuse for venting his resentment against Barrett, who was not in any way responsible for his humiliation. His rudeness, treachery, and mendacity in telling the governor that Barrett was incompetent, and his assumption of the credit for Barrett brilliant work, were unpardonable. Barrett must have felt some solace in the encouragement he received from his friends in England. Throughout the years he was working in Jamaica he kept up a correspondence with such world-famous geologists as Sedgwick, Woodward, and Murchison. They, at least, gave his work that whole-hearted appreciation which it had so signally failed to evoke among the mine owners in Jamaica and their sympathizers in the Legislature. THE SURVEY CONTINUES37In the heading of the report on the parish of Portland, east of the Rio Grande, it is stated that it was surveyed by James G. Sawkins, and probably both the survey and the report are entirely his work. The two earlier reports had a logical and systematic arrangement, being divided into sections, with headings and subheadings. But the east Portland report has no plan or system; it is merely an itinerary, wandering along the roads and noting each physical feature or rock exposure as it comes. It could have been appropriately entitled eological rambles in Portland.�It has little value. Evidently the methodical arrangement of the two previous reports had been due to Barrett. In the latter months of 1860, the survey of the western part of the parish of St. Thomas-in-the-East and the parish of St. David was begun. The latter parish included the area between Bull Bay and White Horses and extended north to the main ridge of the Blue Mountains. It was not until 1867 that it was attached to St. Thomas-in-the-East to form the existing parish of St. Thomas, by an ct to Reduce the Number of Parishes.�The report dated 1861 was signed by Sawkins and was, no doubt, partly his workt included descriptions of the scenery by Sawkins the artist (he Great Negro River ... with beautiful bamboos overhanging its banks, and here and there a palm or a large ceiba tree towering above the Acacia ... and spreading its magnient branches over the green savannah ...�, and we have another description of dawn over the Blue Mountains. It is impossible to say how much of Barrett work is incorporated, but it may be noted that it is divided into three numbered sections with many subheads, which suggests that he was responsible at least for the planning of the report. The year 1861 was unfavorable for ldwork, being unusually wet. In January, Barrett, perhaps in the course of a reinvestigation of the copper ores of the parish of Portland, which he had described in 1859, penetrated far up the Back River, a tributary of the Rio Grande draining the northern slopes of the Blue Mountains. Here he collected several specimens of a fossil which, although it showed certain extraordinary and previously unknown features, he recognized as a ippurite.�Nearly 100 years were to elapse before Barrett locality was to be visited by another geologist, the late Professor V.A. Zans,18 who found this nearly inaccessible spot in August 1958, and collected several topotypes (that is, fossils collected from the locality where the original type specimens were found). Barrett Annual Report for 1861 tells us that the survey of the parish of St. George (= western Portland in modern usage) had been completed and the survey of the parish of Metcalfe (= southeastern St. Mary in modern usage) completed as far west as the Wagwater River. Since this report is datelined Fort Stewart, Metcalfe, it is evident that Barrett himself was surveying these parishes, though he modestly refrains from mentioning it and no report of this area was submitted until 1867, when it was written by other hands. Sawkins, on the other hand, is given credit for having completed the survey of the parish of St. David (= western
