Í 
Í 
tl 
—— A 
124 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOÖLOGY. 
These three formations, although distinct in lithologic characters, 
grade into one another, the Richmond being a littoral, non-calcareous 
clastic formation, the Cambridge a mixed calcareous and argillaceous 
littoral, and the Montpelier a truly deep sea foraminiferal chalk deposit. 
De la Beche, the earliest writer on the geology of Jamaica, placed 
the beds included in our Richmond beds, in his medial, or Carboniferous 
Series,’ and included the Cambridge in the base of his * White Lime 
stone," now known to embrace formations from Eocene to recent inclu- 
sive, the Miocene excepted. He referred the fossils from the base of 
this series (our Cambridge beds) to the Eocene, and considered them t0 
“belong to the same age as the London Clay, Oulcaire grossier of the 
Paris Basin," and published a figure of one of the large Cerithiums? 
peculiar to it. 
Duncan and Wall, and others connected with writing up the Ja 
maican Reports, referred the beds of our Richmond formation to the 
Eocene, but expressed many confusing opinions concerning the age of 
the beds we have placed in the. Cambridge and Montpelier, some of the 
writers having referred them at first to the Eocene, — which conclusion 
was finally abandoned by Etheridge and others, who confused them with 
the Miocene strata. These beds, which underlie the white limestones 
were at first considered Eocene by C. B. Brown and other field worker? 
in the western parishes, but through the unfortunate miscorrelation 0? 
the part of the workers in the eastern parishes, as explained in the In 
troduction of this Report, they were confused with the Bowden beds 
which overlie the white limestones, and all conception of their true 
position was completely obliterated. 
C. B. Brown ? described the Yellow Limestones (Cambridge beds) with 
Orbitoides in St. James, “which agrees with descriptions of Claiborne 
Jackson, and Suggsville beds." He noted that no provision had bee? 
made by the government for a critical examination by a paleontologists 
“therefore until such has been made, the subject must remain unset 
tled." He also referred to a list of fossils from this formation in th? 
Appendix of the Report, but does not give it. It is a singular fact that 
the species of this fauna were apparently never seen nor studied by the 
English paleontologists, into whose hands fell the official collections 9 
the Jamaican Surveys. 
Sawkins’s published views are conflicting. At one time in discussing 
the “Yellow Limestone of Trelawney” (our Cambridge beds), he de 
1 Trans. Geol. Soc. London, 1826, No. 86, pp. 157-103. 2 Tbid., p. 171. 
3 Jamaican Reports, p. 244, 
