260 
Ll agree with Mr Bristow that you cannot separate Sutton 
stone and Conglomerate, in the way Mr Tawney has done it, 
and also that the measurements of thickness by the former are 
accurate, viz. 35 to 37 feet. I made it 36, while Mr Tawney 
shows 89:9. I cannot, however, bring my mind to consider the 
lower series of Sutton stone west of the caves as true Lias, and 
I believe it represents the White Lias, and that the lower bed 
at the Stormy Cement Works is the same. We certainly found 
neither Ammonites nor Gryphea incurva in it. There were many 
sections of shells which might be mistaken for them, but we 
believed they were probably Ostrea wirregularis. The Pecten 
Suttonensis and Ostrea interstriata abounded, and higher up I 
found a good Modiola, much like those occurring at Westbury cliff. 
With regard to the evidence of the beds as furnished by 
the corals in the long list of Madreporia which Mr Tomes has 
made in his communication to the Quarterly Journal of the 
Geological Society, and which, with his permission, I have given 
at the end of this paper, it will be seen that nearly all the 
species hitherto determined from the White Lias are also St. 
Cassian species, the only exception being Montlivaltia Rhetica 
and the branching Thecosmislia from Long Sutton; also that 
a certain number of St. Cassian and White Lias are common 
to those formations and to the Sutton stone, but that none 
of them occur in the Brocastle Conglomerate. Furthermore a 
most important difference will be observed between the coral 
faunas of the Sutton stone and Brocastle, not a single species 
being common to both. 
Paleontological evidence of the age of the Sutton stone 
would, no doubt, be conclusive, if no uncertainty existed 
respecting the precise spot from which the fossils were obtained, 
but the difficulty of collecting them, excepting corals, and 
the doubt as to their position, owing to the diversity of opinion 
of the several collectors respecting the definition of the Sutton 
stone proper, diminishes very greatly the value of their evidence. 
Mr Tomes mentions in his paper in the Quart. Journ., p. 361, 
“that Mr Moors has expressed the opinion that a great thick- 
ness of Conglomerate exists below the Sutton stone. This, he 
