72 PROCEEDINGS COTTESWOLD CLUB 1910 



Cheltenham district, and therefore paralleled the overlying 

 Lower Limestone with the Lower Freestone. It might have 

 been thought that what remained of the Pea-Grit at Selsley 

 Hill was sufficiently typical to prevent any such mistake being 

 made. Lycett did not omit to notice it, but thought it was 

 simply a marly bed in the Fimbria-Sta.ge, and therefore at a 

 higher horizon than the Pea-Grit of the Cheltenham district. 



Witchell's essay " On the Genus Nerincea, and its Strati- 

 graphical Distribution in the Cotteswolds,"' although eminently 

 palaeontological, contains some interesting observations on the 

 extension of the Pea-Grit to the south of Stroud, and clears up 

 effectually the confusion that had arisen through Lycett and 

 others thinking that what is really Pea-Grit was a bed in the 

 "Freestone" division. 



In 1887 appeared part i of "A Monograph of the Inferior 

 Oolite Ammonites of the British Islands," by S. S. Buckman, 

 and in part 2 detailed records of the Cephalopod-Bed Sections 

 at Frocester Hill, Coaley Wood, Stinchcombe, and Nibley 

 Knoll, are given ; but little attention is paid to higher beds. 



In 1888 Witchell wrote " On a Section of Selsley HiU."^ 

 The geology of the hill is set forth in detail, but there is 

 really very little that is new, for he had announced his im- 

 portant discoveries in earlier papers. The " dapple-beds " of 

 the Lower Limestone are described at some length, and refer- 

 ence is made to the " Gryphite-Grit." The strain of his state- 

 ment, that " the Gryphite-Grit of Selsley Hill is without the 

 characteristic fossil Gryphcea suhlobata. This is another pecu- 

 liar feature of the Selsley beds," almost suggests that he was 

 beginning to doubt if his identification of the bed as Gryphite- 

 Grit were correct. As a matter of fact, of course, it was not, 

 for it is now known that he had mistaken a portion of the 

 Upper Trigonia-Gni for the Gryphite-Grit. 



In 1889 there appeared Mr S. S. Buckman's paper " On 

 the Cotteswold, Midford, and Yeovil Sands, and the Division 

 between the Lias and Oohte."-' The old controversy is again 

 reviewed, sections of the Cotteswold Sands at Buckholt Wood, 

 Coaley Wood, Nibley Knoll, and Little Sodbury are discussed, 

 and it is shown that the Cotteswold, Yeovil and Midford Sands 



I Proc. Cotteswold Nat. F. C, vol. vs.., pt. i (i»S5-6), pp. 21-37. 2 Proc. Cotteswold Nat. F.C., 

 vol. ix., pt. a (for 1886-87), PP- 96-107. 3 Quart. Joum. Geol. Soc, vol. xlv. (1889), pp. 440-473. 



