199 



later, viz., in November, 1866, he states the object of the 

 comimanication to be "to introduce to Palseontologists a new 

 British Coral fauna, from deposits of Liassic age," previously 

 referred to as including the beds at Sutton, Southerndown, 

 Brocastle, Ewenny, Langan, Laleston, Cowbridge, and Shepton 

 Mallet, which beds he proposes to correlate with each other 

 and with the Infra-Lias of Normandy. He proposes to follow 

 certain continental authorities in separating the zone of A. 

 angulatus, under the name of Infra-Lias, from the Lias proper, 

 to which he assigns as a boundary the zone of A. BucMandi. 

 The Ehsetic or St. Cassian theory adopted by Dr. Duncan in 

 his previous paper appears to be abandoned, and the continental 

 Infra-Lias substituted in its stead. After a lapse of a few 

 months, viz., in March, 1867, a paper by Henry W. Bristow, 

 r.E.S., of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, on "The 

 Lower Lias, or Lias Conglomerate of a part of Glamorganshire," 

 refers the beds at Sutton and Southerndown to the position all 

 along claimed for them by Mr. Mooee, viz., that of true Lower 

 Lias ; a determination further corroborated by Mr. Tate's paper, 

 read in May, 1867, on the "Zone of Ammonites angulatus in 

 Great Britain." And now what is the position of Mr. Mooee 

 in respect of priority in the matter under discussion ? He has 

 always consistently urged the true character of these beds, now 

 admitted on all hands to be of Liassic age. So far back as 

 1865, an abstract of his views was published in the Proceedings 

 of the Bath Field Club, so that they really have precedence over 

 those of Tawney's and Duncan's St. Cassian theory, which did 

 not appear until May, 1866. In March, 1867, Mr. Moore's 

 paper on the "Age of the Sutton and Southerndown Series" was 

 read before the Geological Society, though the publication of it 

 was deferred for nine months, on account of its alleged length, 

 while Mr. Bristow' s paper, read at the same time, was published 

 previously, as was that of Mr. Tate, read two months later. 

 These two papers serve to confirm in every important particular 

 the views of Mr. Moore, which correlate the Sutton and 

 Southerndown beds with the Lower Lias. Am I wrong, then, 

 in claiming for our colleague priority in the advocacy of those 



