766 REPORT— 1900. 



nopteris Murrayana (BroDgn.); S. Williamsoni, Brongn.; Tce7i!opteris major,Jj. & 

 H.; T. vitfaf.a, Bronga. ; Todites Willia7nsoni {QTon^n.) ; An07n0zamif.es Nilssoni 

 (Phill.) ; Ai-aucarif.es Pkillijjsi, Carr; Baiera gracilis, Bunb. ; B. LiTidleyana 

 (Schimp.); B. Phillipsi,'Na.th.; Bea/iia r/racilis, Ga,rr; Bi-achi/phi/llum maiT^illare, 

 Brongn. ; C/iei/-olepis setosus ( Phill.) ; C/'i/pto77ieritcs dimricatus, Banb. ; Ctenis 

 falcatn,h. & H. ; Czehaiioivskia Mu7-7-a>/a)ia{L. & H.) ; Dioo/iitcK Nathorsti, sp. 

 nov. ; Giiikffo diffitata {Brongn.) ; G. whitbietisis,'Na.th.; JVaffeiopsis UTifflica, sp. 

 nov. ; Nilsso7iia co7npta (Phill.) ; N. mediana (Leek., ex Bean, MS.) ; N. tenui- 

 wer«s, Nath. ; OtozaTnites acu77iinatns (L. & H..); O. Beani (h. & H.) ; O. Bun- 

 bwya/izts, Zign. ; O. Feist77ia7iteli, Zign. ; O. .(/m^jAtczi.s (Leek., ex Bean, MS.) ; O. 

 obtusus (L. & H.), war. ooliticus; O. paralleliis (Phili.) ; Pa<jiophyllm7i WilliamsoTii 

 (Brongn.) ; Podozamites Icmceolatus (L. & H.) ; Ptilozai7iites (Leek., ex Bean, 

 MS.) ; Taxites zainioides (Leek.) ; WiUia7/iso7iia giqas (L. ..t II.) ; W. pecten 

 (Phill.). 



The English flora is compared by the author with Rhretie, Jurassic, and Weal- 

 den floras of other regions ; a comparison is made also between the fossil flora and 

 the vegetation of the present day. 



6. Note on the Age of the Eiiglish Wealden Series. 

 By G. "W. Lamplugh, F.G.S., of H.M. Geological Survey. 



In recent discussions arising from the renewed attempts to define more closely 

 the boundary between the Jurassic and Cretaceous systems in Kussia, Germany, 

 Belgium, and France, and also in North America, constant reference has been made 

 to the English "Wealden deposits as afibrding a standard of comparison. But 

 meanwhile doubt has been thrown, by palaeontologists who have studied certain 

 portions of the Wealden flora and fauna, on the hitherto accepted classification of 

 these English deposits with the Lower Ci'etaeeous, on the ground that the fossils 

 showed strong Jurassic affinities. This opinion has been expressed by the late 

 Professor O. C. Marsh in regard to the reptiles, by Dr. A. Smith Woodward in 

 regard to the fish, and by A. C. Seward in regard to the plants. To prevent 

 further confusion it is therefore desirable that certain facts which have been over- 

 looked in this discussion, though for the most part already published, should be 

 restated, since these facts seem sufficient to prove that at any rate the greater 

 portion of the English Wealden series must remain as part of the Lower Cre- 

 taceous. 



It has not always been sufficiently borne in mind that the accumulation of the 

 Wealden Series must have required a period of long duration. The sands of the 

 Hastings Beds may indeed have been deposited rather rapidly, but the shaly clays 

 with layers of shells and cyprids interstratified with these sands indicate slower 

 sedimentation, and the great mass of Weald Clay, reaching 1 ,000 feet in thickness, 

 must represent an epoch of great length. Hence, since it is universally acknow- 

 ledged that the fresh-water conditions did not set in until the closing stages 

 of the Jurassic period, it seems inevitable from this consideration alone that such 

 conditions persisted into Lower Cretaceous times. 



Again, nearly all the ' Wealden ' fossils in which Jurassic affinities have been 

 observed have been obtained from the lower part of the Wealden series {i.e. from 

 the Hastings Beds), and very little is known respecting the corresponding fossils 

 from the Weald Clay which probably represents the major portion of the Wealden 

 period. 



Moreover, the argument from the Jurassic affinities of the land and fresh-water 

 fossils alone inspires no confidence, since if we eliminate the Lower Wealden 

 fossils from the Lower Cretaceous lists our knowledge is practically limited to 

 the marine life of this period ; and it may be legitimately asked whether the land 

 and fresh-water fossils of the Hastings Beds are not, after all, of the character 

 proper to the lowermost part of the Cretaceous, wherein a close relationship to 

 the immediately preceding period seems quite appropriate. 



It is from the stratigraphical evidence, however, that the Lower Cretaceous 



