236 Mr. H. Seeley on the StratigrapMcal Position 



of Yarmouth, than whom no one has more influenced opinion 

 concerning it. Following out in its literal meaning the sugges- 

 tion of Prof. Sedgwick, he has, during the last five-and-twenty 

 years, stanchly advocated the idea of the Hunst'on rock being 

 an equivalent of the Gault. This is not done without some ex- 

 pression of surprise ; for he observes, " Who, without consulting 

 the ' medals of Nature,' could imagine that the Red Limestone 

 of Hunst'on and the blue Gault containing grey limestone at 

 Pentney and Bilney were deposits of the same epoch V The 

 evidence here, from mineral chai'acter and position, is un- 

 questionably strong, and, if at all supported by palseontological 

 evidence, would go far to decide the question. Now, the case 

 stands thus : the Pentney limestone contains Terehratula bipli- 

 cata, and that of Bilney Inoceramus grypliceoides — characteristic 

 Gault fossils, which also occur at Hunstanton. But on attach- 

 ing the ranges to Mr. Rose's list, only one-third (nine) will be 

 found in the Gault, and but two or three peculiar to it ; another 

 third ranges to the Upper Greensand, with two peculiar species ; 

 and the remainder to the Chalk, with five peculiar species. So, 

 whatever the evidence from fossils may have been years ago, 

 when their ranges were less known, it is now certain that the 

 list published in 1835 will not justify us in a belief that the bed 

 is unequivocally Gault. It is impossible to disguise the fact 

 that the Hunst'on beds contain a large proportion of the Gault 

 fossils ; but to maintain therefore that they must be Gault equi- 

 valents would be no more logical than to maintain that, because 

 the lied Crag contains many recent shells, it must necessarily 

 be a raised sea-beach ; and when so large a majority of the 

 forms belong to deposits newer than the Gault, all that can be 

 deduced from the presence of those peculiar to that formation 

 is, that such forms have a longer range in time than has been 

 hitherto supposed. It is somewhat remarkable that, from evi- 

 dence but little differing, Mr. Woodward and Mr. Rose should 

 have adopted conclusions having so little in common. That fact 

 alone sufficiently demonstrates that one or other of them is ne- 

 cessarily wrong. The evidence of palaeontology appears to show 

 both to be impossible. 



In 1836, Sir R. I. Murchison, who described the Hunstanton 

 section in Dr. Fitton's paper*, ^vas inclined, with the doubt 

 of a double query, to believe both Gault and Greensand there 

 represented. This is noticeable as almost the only instance in 

 which any notice is taken of the large proportion of Upper 

 Greensand fossils. No evidence is produced in support, how- 

 ever; and the opinion can only be valuedjas an idea. Dr. Fittonf, 



* * Strata below the Chalk.' f ' Formations below the Chalk.' 



