464 Retrospective Criticisnt. 
the vale of the Eden, and supposing the latter to underlie the mountain lime 
stone, has been long exploded; nevertheless some excellent geologists have 
very recently again ‘confounded the two formations, by considering the con- 
glomerate, as it displays itself upon Melmerby Fell; as the lower member 
of the new red sandstone, analogous to the well-known Exeter conglomer- 
ate. This error has arisen from the peculiar nature of the gr ound, and 
from a too confined examination of the stratum. On Metmerby Fell the 
whole face of the escarpment is thrown into disorder by great land-slips 
which have taken place, so that, in rising upwards, we would appear to 
arrive at several beds of the same rock. Thus in endeayouri ing to reach 
the great or Melmerby Scar limestone, which here forms so important a 
feature, after toiling up a steep ascent, we arrive at what appears to be the 
regular basset of the stratum, but, when upon it, find, that it is only a 
fragment slipped from the bed, which may be seen at a great height above. 
‘This is precisely the cause of the confusion in the old red sandstone: it is 
here raised considerably above its usual level, by the greater protrusion of 
the slate rocks ; and, in ascending the Fell by Melmer by Beck, it makes its 
appearance several times, so that its true relation to the adjoining strata is 
very difficult to define. By tracing the foot of the escarpment southward, 
it may be seen in many places undisturbed, but perhaps can no where be 
studied to greater advantage than in Blencarn Burn, between Melmerby 
and Knock. Here it is found at the base of the cliff regularly reposing upon 
the clay slate rocks, and having resting upon it the alternating beds of the 
mountain limestone formation. If we examine this group of slate and 
greenstone rocks, and the beds associated with it, according to the views 
recently propounded in France by M. Elie de Beaumont, it would ap- 
pear that the range of Crossfell had been raised after the consolidation 
of the coal measures, and before the deposition of the new red sandstone. 
The beds of mountain limestone and coal strata, thrown into a position 
almost vertical by the rising of the slate and greenstone rocks, prove the 
first proposition, and the undisturbed state of the new red sandstone, 
which, like a sea, sweeps round and fills up the inequalities of the older 
strata, being thus brought into contact with rocks of all ages, would 
Uteas to prove the second. — William Hutton. Newcastle upon Tyne, 
Apri 8. 1830. 
Or. Ure’s Geology ; in answer to T. E. (p. 90.) — Sir, Tam most anxious 
that your valuable pages be not unnecessarily occupied by controversy : 
my notice of the observations of T, E. of Cambridge shall therefore be as 
brief as possible. The blunders of Dr. Ure in placing the lias above the 
coral rag, &c.,and which, in my ignorance, [ deemed an important error, your 
‘Cambridge correspondent says ought only to be considered as “ a gross 
over: sight i in the correction of the press!” Be it so. Some, perhaps, will 
think T. E.’s expression as severe as mine. But can T. E. be serious 
‘when he asserts that Dr. Ure is actually right in his account of the strata 
and fossils of the Hastings beds? Can it be correct to state, in one part 
of the volume, that those deposits are pr obably of marine origin, and that 
their organic remains are Naitili, Ammonites, Xc. (Dr. Ure, p. 274.); and in 
another. part to mention that herbivorous reptiles, ter restrial vegetables, 
&c., are found in the same beds, and quote as authority an author (Dr. 
Ure, p. 453.) who maintains that neither Nattili, nor Ammonéfes, nor any 
of the other ancient multilocular genera of Testicea, occur in them ? I might, 
indeed, Sir, refer to the Number of your Journal (p. 12.) in which T. E.’s 
letter appears, in support of the objections advanced in my former commu- 
nication: Mr, Bakewell’s remarks render mine unnecessary. The attempt 
of T. E. to defend the accuracy of the plates is so manifest a failure as 
scarcely to require refutation. Scaphites, Coneybeare, p.73. “ The first 
genus (Ainmonées) occurs rarely in the upper chalk; the second (Sca- 
phites) only in the lower,” If this be an error, it is Messrs. Coneybeare and 
