164 PROCEEDINGS COTTESWOLD CLUB 1903 
to a number of remarkable projections. Moreover, the 
usual absence of any dark line at the base of the markings, 
and the more even distribution of the latter, serve further 
to differentiate the /sthevza-bed phenomenon from that of 
the Cotham Marble. 
The fragmentary nature of the tests of the lamellibranchs 
in the shelly portion of the bed will not allow even of a 
generic determination in most cases. Fish scales, how- 
ever, are found with the shell fragments, often perfect. 
The £stheri@ are rarely well preserved, the best speci- 
mens occurring in association with the plant remains. 
Prof. T. Rupert Jones examined specimens from this 
locality, and described the matrix in which they were 
embedded as “a light, yellowish-grey, soft, fine-grained 
limestone.”* Brodie had, previous to 1845, recorded from 
the same stratum “ Cyfvis “assica,” on which account he 
denominated the bed the “ Cyf7zs-bed.”* In his descrip- 
tion of Darwinula fassica, Prof. T. Rupert Jones referred 
to “specimens of this species in the Geological Society’s 
Collection [which] came from the cream-coloured lime- 
stone with Wazadites, or “ Cypris-bed,” at Westbury-on- 
Severn. 3 
Separating the Asthevza- and Pseudomonotis-beds is a 
deposit of grey shales, with two sandstone bands, these 
latter being very pyritic in places. 
The Pseudomonotis-bed, which succeeds, is divisible into 
two portions, and it is the upper layer which contains the 
characteristic lamellibranch most abundantly. The lowest 
layer of the lower division contains Pleuroyma Dunkert 
in great numbers, the layer in which they occur separating 
easily from the grey limestone constituting the upper part 
of the lower division. This latter contains J/odzola 
minima and Pseudomonotis decussata in some numbers. 
1 “A Monograph of the Fossil Estherize,’ Pal. Soc. (1862), p. 67. 
2 “Fossil Insects,” pp. 79-80. 3 Quart. Journ. Geol Soc., Vol. 1. (1894), p. 163. 
