12 Hick LING, British Pet-niian Footprints. 



I am not aware that any other " species " have been 

 published for Dumfriesshire. 



Age of the Dumfries Footprints. — Nine distinct types 

 of impression are here figured, while as many more 

 certainly exist which are too imperfect for complete 

 specification or have never been figured. The argument 

 from negative evidence, that among these types there is 

 not one that can be identified with the still larger number 

 of known British Triassic prints (see Beasley, :03 — :08), is 

 strong against the Triassic age of these strata. It is much 

 strengthened by the fact that the principal t}'pes of 

 Triassic prints are represented by identical forms from 

 several Triassic localities. Thirdly, the whole fades of 

 the Dumfries prints differs from that of the Triassic 

 series. On the other hand, out of five types of impression 

 from Mansfield here figured, two appear to be identical 

 with Dumfries forms, while I am convinced that the 

 number of coincidences may be readily increased. In 

 both localities, impressions of the " Chelichnoid " type are 

 dominant. Finally, though no exact coincidence between 

 the Penrith prints and those from Dumfries can )'et be 

 shown, the general fades is again in close agreement 

 {cf, Plate II., Fig. 13, with Plate III, Figs. 20b and 21b). 

 These facts appear to me practically conclusive in favour 

 of the Permian age of the Dumfries strata. It is interest- 

 ing to note that Harkness identified some of the Penrith 

 prints as Chelichniis Dnncani. (Hark., '62, p. 218.) 



The Elgin FooTrRiNTS. 



These tracks, first noticed by Captain Lambart 

 Brickenden (Brickenden, '52), were subsequently described 

 by Huxley (Hux., '59 and '77)- I'l t^""^' l^^lgin district 



