On Jurassic and Cretaceous fossils from North-East Greenland. 447 



at any rate greatly resembled the sandstone found down from "Tnek- 

 passet" and mentioned above (p. 441). This conglomerate is called 

 "gneiss-conglomerate" in the sequel. After this followed a conglome- 

 rate of quite a different appearance. It consisted likewise of gneiss 

 boulders, often larger than a man; the interspaces were here filled 

 with a light-yellow or reddish-brown limestone, which was formed 

 to a very great extent of shells of Aucellae; the reddish sandstone 

 was likewise found in this conglomerate. In the following this con- 

 glomerate is called the "Aucella-conglomerate". Towards the south 

 the conglomerate was bounded by gneiss. The two conglomerates 

 mentioned were very different in appearance, when seen from a 

 distance, but near at hand they seemed to grade into one another. 

 In the section the boundary line between them formed an angle of 

 ca. 4o° with the horizontal line, the "gneiss [conglomerate" being 

 partly covered over by the "Aucella-conglomerate". The strike and 

 dip of the boundary plane could not be determined. 



No fossils were found in the "gneiss-conglomerate". On the other 

 hand, fossils were very abundant in the "Aucella-conglomerate", as 

 the limestone between the gneiss blocks was formed almost ex- 

 clusively of shells of Aacella concentrica, A. crassicollis and A. pirifor- 

 mis, which evidently occur here in enormous quantities. These 3 

 species, according to Pavlow, are characteristic of the zone with 

 Polgptychites polyptychus, and the "Aucella-conglomerate" tluis belongs 

 to the Neocomian. 



How are we to explain this section'? The most natural view 

 seems to me the following. The gneiss-conglomerate belongs to the 

 sandstone and indicates the transgression of the latter over the gneiss. 

 That this seems to be the explanation would appear from the facts, 

 (1) that there is no distinct boundary between the sandstone and 

 conglomerate; (2) that the size of the gneiss fragments increases 

 towards the south (thus in the direction away from the sandstone); 

 and (.'{), that the interspaces between the gneiss fragments are filled 

 with a sandstone, which macroscopically at least resembles the sand- 

 stone farther north. As the latter belongs to the Callovian, we thus 

 find here a transgression of Callovian age. Unfortunately, no trace 

 of fossils could be found in this conglomerate, from which ils age 

 might have been determined. 



The Aucella-conglomerate is much younger than the gneiss-con- 

 glomerate, as it certainly belongs to the Neocomian, as mentioned 

 above; it also has quite a different character. Like the gneiss-con- 

 glomerate it consists for a very great part of gneiss fragments, it is 

 true, but the interspaces between these are filled with Aucella shells. 

 Here also the reddish sandstone occurs, but — I expect — only as 



