394 REPORT—1890. 
In 1864 Prof. Seeley published a list of Red Chalk fossils,! in which 
were included seven species of Polyzoa. These, together with other new 
Red Chalk fossils, were described in 1866,? and in my present list (p. 895) 
three additional species which may be regarded as new are given—partly 
upon the authority of Prof. Seeley. 
In a second paper by the Rev. T. Wiltshire ® the author adds to his 
former list three more species of Hunstanton Polyzoa; and a very full list 
of Red Chalk fossils, including five species of Polyzoa, is given as an 
appendix to Mr. Whitaker’s Presidential address to the Norwich Geo- 
logical Society.* Besides these, I am not aware of any other papers in 
which Red Chalk Polyzoa are mentioned. I am very sorry that these 
papers were overlooked by me when I wrote the monograph referred to 
on p. 395 of the present report. 
No disrespect is intended towards those authors who have written on 
the Red Chalk (and a long list of papers are before me) ; but, as Messrs. 
W. H. Hill and A. J. Jukes-Browne have summarised much of the 
previous literature on the subject, I will, for brevity, only quote remarks 
from their two latest papers. The reason will be at once apparent, when 
I say that at the present time these authors regard the Hunstanton Lime- 
stone as being the equivalent of the Gault: and, if so, the Polyzoa which 
are adherent to the Red Chalk fossils belong to the Gault epoch also. 
All the true British Gault species known to me, with which I can com- 
pare these faunas, have been tabulated in the present Report. D’Orbigny, 
in his elaborate analysis of the Cretaceous Polyzoa, catalogues only six- 
teen species in his ‘ Albien’ stage, three of which we meet with in the 
British fauna :— 
1. Multelea gracilis, d’Orb. (Cricopora gracilis, Michelin), Terr. Crét. 
p- 645. 
2. Multicrescis mamillata, d’Orb. Ib. p. 1076. 
3. be Michelini, d’Orb. (Heteropora cryptopora, Mich.), Ib. 
p- 1075. 
Novak,” in his long list of the Bohemian Polyzoan fauna, does not 
mention Gault species; and Marsson® mentions only one Gault form, 
Sparsicavea irregularis, d’Orb., and this species ranges into Turonian and 
Senonian strata. 
In their paper ‘On the Lower Beds of the Upper Cretaceous Series in 
Suffolk and Norfolk,’ Messrs. Hill and Jukes-Browne7 remark (p. 592): 
‘We are now in a position to indicate the bearing of our work on the 
debated question of the exact age of the Red Chalk. In the absence 
of anything like ordinary Gault, Upper Greensand, or Chalk-marl at 
Hunstanton, the remarkable stratum which there lies at the base of the 
Chalk has been referred by different observers to each of the formations 
which appeared to be missing,—to the Gault by most of the early writers 
and by Mr. Wiltshire, to the Upper Greensand by Professor Seeley (on 
the strength of its fossils being similar to those of the Cambridge Green- 
sand), and lastly to the Chalk-marl by Mr. Whitaker. Everyone, how- 
ever, has discussed the question from a local point of view, founding their 
1 Ann. Mag. Nat, Hist. vol. xiv. pp. 276, 278. 
2 Tbid. vol. xvii. p. 181. 3 Quart. Jowrn. Geol. Soc. vol. xxv. p. 187. 
* Proc. Nornich Geol. Soc. vol. i. part vii. 1883. 
5 Bryoz. Bohm. Kreidef. & Die Bryoz. Weiss. Schreibhreide Insel Riigen. 1887. — 
7 Quart. Journ. Geol, Soc. vol. xliii. p. 544. 
ee 
