242 KEPORT — 1887. 



ground, and from 3 ft. to 4 ft. in diameter, but of irregular form. Its 

 entire length is perhaps 1 or 8 ft. Thoresby in 1715 calls it ' a prodigious 

 great stone.' Probably originally nearly rectangular. There are inden- 

 tations in the stone, but not natural. It is composed of millstone grit, 

 similar to that of Horsforfch and Bramley Fall. The Rough Rock, of 

 Horsforth, is about four miles distant on the same side of the river, and 

 at a considerable elevation, some of the quarries being about 475 feet 

 above the sea. The stone has probably come from there. Bramley is 

 about three miles away on the opposite side, and at an elevation of 200 

 feet. The Greystone legend is that a huge giant hurled it from the 

 Giant's Hill at Armley, about half a mile distant on the opposite side 

 of the river, in proof of which statement the indentations of the giant's 

 thumb and fingers are still to be seen. The Giant's Hill belongs to the 

 flagstone series of the Lower Coal measures, whereas the ' Greystone ' is 

 millstone grit, 115 feet above sea-level. Ou the 6-inch Ordnance map. 

 Lat. 53° 48' 40", long. 1° 34' as ' Greystone.' An ancient boundary 

 stone. Has served from time immemorial as boundary stone separating 

 the manors of Leeds and Burley. Thoresby in 1715 quotes an old MS. 

 survey, N.D : ' Lapis cinereus ingentis magnitudinis admodum antiquatus 

 et vetustatus existens.' It rests upon yellow clay from 8 to 9 feet in 

 thickness, below which there is Coal-measure shale. 



Note. — According to Thoresby there was an old boundary stone called 

 the Paudmire stone in Leeds main street (Briggate) similar to this 

 boulder. This memorable stone was purposely sunk below the pavement 

 as a supposed nuisance when that part was newly paved in the mayoralty 

 of Mr. Samuel Hey (1703). The two stones are in a direct line with the 

 Rough Rock of Horsforth, which is to the N.W. 



i(ote tiiwti the '■ Sitchingstone,' Keighhy Moor. — This huge block of 

 millstone grit was described to the Committee by Mr. E. G. Spencer in 

 1874 as a ' boulder,' and the details concerning it will be found in the 

 Report of the British Association for that year, p. 196. 



A few years subsequently Mr. J. R. Dakyns, of the Geological Survey, 

 stated in a letter to the Geological Magazine that ' in his opinion it is not a 

 boulder ' ; and that ' it has no single characteristic of a boulder about it. 

 It is not rounded or scratched, nor is it standing on end, nor in any such 

 a way as to raise a suspicion of its having been removed.' 



The Leeds Geological Association has, during- the past j^ear, tho- 

 roughly investigated the subject, and the seci'etary (Mr. Adamson) has 

 described the results in a paper published in The Naturalist, November 

 1886, p. 333. 



In this paper clear and satisfactory reasons are given in confirmation 

 of Mr, Dakyns' opinion. The Hitchingstone cannot be regarded as an 

 erratic, but is a portion of the ' Rough Rock ' which originally covered 

 the moors, and in situ. 



Mr. R. H. Tiddeman, M.A., F.G.S., communicates (with the permis- 

 sion of the Director- General of H.M. Geological Surveys) the following 

 report ' On the Distribution of Boulders from the Base of the Carbon- 

 iferous Series at Norber and Malham Tarn, Yorkshire.' 



Throughout the great area of Carboniferous rocks in the West Riding 

 of Yorkshire there are hardly any rocks at the same time sufficiently 

 well marked in character and limited in their area to give any good indi- 

 cations of the general distribution by drift transport of boulders from the 

 original rock. Limestones, sandstones, grits, and shales, in all parts of 



