146 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF QUEENSLAND. 



they lie in small hollows in the chalk plain, and may attain a 

 thickness of fifty feet, but are generally much thinner. Thej- 

 seldom cover more than a few square rods in area. They are 

 usually finely bedded, but the bedding-planes now lie at any 

 angle or may even be contorted. Tliis is due partly to their 

 porosity enhancing the rate of solution of the underlying chalk, 

 which, wasting more quickly than that around, lets the 

 Brandon Beds gradually down into a cup-shaped hollow. This 

 is action from below. From above they have been tilted or 

 contorted by the moving ice, which in places has protruded 

 tongues of boulder-clay into or even beneath them. Often the 

 ice has overridden ^\^thout disturbing them, just as one may 

 see a modem glacier do, which is nevertheless j)loughing up the 

 rocks hard by. The effects of these two opposite disturbing 

 influences must be carefully disentangled if one is to read the 

 record faithfully. 



They are sometimes covered with several feet of typical 

 Ijoulder-clay, as at Culford, but generally the glacial overburden 

 is thin, and often as at Broomhill only a trace is left, hard to 

 make out ; sometimes the boulder-clay has been completely 

 worn awaj^ But the Brandon Beds are invarably associated 

 with the Chalky Boulder Clay, and even A\'here they now lie 

 uncovered it can always be proved that boulder-clay once 

 overlaid them. The boulder-clay itself, over the chalk plain, 

 lies preserved in just the same kind of hollows eaten into the 

 chalk as do the implement -yielding loams and gravels. Tliis 

 curiously intimate association of isolated patches of the two 

 ■deposits ("inUers" we call them) is the key to the problem. 



STONES F. BONES. 



Another objection was extracted from the stones them- 

 selves. See, they said, they agree not inter se ; they are 

 obviously of different types ! Tjqies ! what had I to do with 

 types ? I was no tj^iist, only a stenographer of facts. I onlj' 

 had one point to make, that these implements were older 

 than the boulder-clay. Still, in a way, they had right on their 

 side. Take these four specimens (exhibited) for example. 

 This very crude flint they would now, I presume, call an 

 eolith, of which more anon. This rolled, worn, rusty tool 

 I suppose the French would dub a conp-de-jcoing of, say, 

 Acheulian age. This beautiful pointed implement, finely 

 flaked all over, would be unhesitatingly assigned to the 



