2 HlCKLlNCi, British Permian Footprints. 



postponed in the hope that the quarry, which has been 

 standing for some years, would be re-opened. It now 

 appears to me desirable to call attention to what is 

 already known without further delay. 



I shall first refer briefly to the new prints from Mans- 

 field, and then to the Penrith specimens. Those two 

 collections, being definite Permian, will serve as a basis 

 for comparison. The Dumfries prints will then be con- 

 sidered : outlines of them are given in Plate III., as the 

 existing figures are very inaccessible. The prints from 

 Elgin and Exeter will follow, and lastly a comparison 

 will be drawn between the British and Thuringian 

 Permian prints, and between the Permian and Carboni- 

 ferous forms. 



Detailed descriptions of the impressions will not 

 be given. Figures alone can characterise footprints 

 sufficiently. 



It does not appear to be desirable that footprints 

 should bear biological names ; j-et some index by which 

 they may be referred to is essential, and an indication of 

 the groups in which they may be arranged is valuable. 

 Names for such groups are also useful. The dominant 

 type of impression in the British Pcrmians appears 

 undoubtedly to be that to which the prints, named by 

 Jardine " Chelichnus " (Jard., '50), belong. Impressions of 

 this " chelichnoid " group may therefore be indicated by 

 the letters CI., with a number to indicate the particular 

 form. Other groups may be treated in a sitnilar manner. 

 This is essentially the same system as that used by Mr. 

 Beasley in treating the Triassic footprints (Beasley, :o3). 



The Mansfield Footi'kint.s. 



ChelicJinoid forms. — The large prints already described 

 (Hickling, :o6) appear to belong to this group as possessing 



