ON THE AGE OF THE CANNII^fGTOIT PAEK LIMESTONE. 381 



Messrs. Eristow and Woodward ^' of H.M. Geological Survey, in 

 a communication to the ''Geological Magazine" (vo]. viii, 1871) 

 have also discussed the question and mentioned the Cannington 

 Limestone therewith. They consider this limestone of Carboniferous 

 age, their words being *' at Cannington Park we have the Mountain 

 Limestone presenting its ordinary features, as they are so well 

 displayed in the corresponding beds at Clifton, on the Mendip HiUs, 

 and in S. Wales," (loc, cit. p. 504). They argae from this fact 

 both the probable existence therefore of a trough of coal measures 

 between here and the Mendips, and that there "is no reason to 

 suppose a great change in the Carboniferous strata immediately 

 south of the Mendips." The reason of this last remark, — to use 

 their own words — being the following : '* the opinion has been 

 expressed by Prof. Prestwich and Mr. Etheridge that, possibly to 

 the south of the Mendips the Coal Measures might assume the 

 Devonian type of Coal Measures." — The fear expressed by the latter 

 authors being that they might be therefore worthless, as it is well 

 known that the Devonshire Culm contains no series of workable 

 Coals. As far as Mr. Etheridge is concerned, this opinion is in 

 aecordance with his views elsewhere expressed, that the Limestone 

 of Cannington Park is of Devonian age. 



We hence have two opposite views to deal with, one that the 

 Limestone is Devonian and that it might be probably succeeded by 

 Culm beds rather than productive Coal Measures ; the other, that 

 of Messrs. Bristow and Woodward, that the Cannington Park 

 Limestone is Carboniferous, and that there is, therefore, no reason 

 to suppose the Coal Measures, if present, to be of another type than 

 north of the Mendips. 



Certainly we agree with the latter, but the only reason they give 

 for the determination of the Carboniferous age, is that of general 

 lithological resemblance, which is, perhaps, hardly sufficient in the 

 face of much divided opinion. 



* See also Quarterly Journal of Science, 1873, vol. III, N.S., p, 108. 



