CORRESPONDING SOCIETIES, 481 



observation of this soot ib would be possible for a botanist to make out 

 something like a distribution of smoke. There is also the distribution of 

 the lichens and mosses. I have suggested to the Yorkshire Naturalists' 

 Union that we should have an advisory committee, selected from the 

 different bodies — geologists, botanists, biologists, and so on — -who should 

 initiate or suggest lines of research in their different sections. Geologists 

 have many questions which the zoologist and the botanist might answer, 

 and this would be a sort of clearing-house, which would be of great 

 advantage . 



The Secretary then read the following note : — 



ISote on Maps of the Ordnance Survey. By T. V. Holmes, F.G.S. 



I enclose two pieces of the 6-inch-to-the-mile map of Kent, showing 

 Greenwich Park, Blackheath, and a little of the adjoining country, which 

 I have had in my possession twenty years or more. Also a much newer 

 map, showing the same district ' on the same scale. On the older map, 

 in the gardens behind the houses which face Blackheath at its north- 

 eastern end, are the words, ' Roman remains found here,' and the words 

 ' Roman remains' appear in the adjacent part of Greenwich Park. A 

 glance at the old map eastward of these spots reveals the fact that the 

 line along which these Roman remains have been found points to their 

 being on a westerly continuation of the Watling Street. And I may add 

 that where the words ' Roman remains ' appear in Greenwich Park there 

 is a slight ridge, the direction of which is that of the words, and which is 

 not traceable beyond them to the west. 



On the newer map all this information about Roman remains is 

 omitted. Such an omission might, of course, be almost or wholly un- 

 avoidable where an open space has become covered by houses since the 

 earlier map was made. But in this case there has been no alteration 

 wliatever as regards the part in question. The omission is the more 

 noticeable as, towards the .south-western corner of Blackheath, ' Camp, 

 supposed remains of,' appears on the older map, and ' supposed Roman 

 Camp ' on the newer, at the same spot. In short, there is no sign of any 

 desire to minimise archajological information pervading the newer map 

 generally. 



Possibly some of the Delegates may have met with omissions on the 

 newer maps of their own districts. 



The Chairman : It is a pity the Ordnance Survey should take off 

 something from the old map. There are, undoubtedly, Roman remains in 

 Greenwich Park, and it is to be regretted that the reference to them should 

 have been omitted from the new map. I think we should write to the 

 Ordnance Survey and call attention to the omission. The more common 

 defect is to put down ' Roman remains ' where none ever existed. I have 

 had to ask them to remove the reference in a Gloucestershire map; but in 

 this case there is little doubt that the old map is correct. There is a row 

 of some twenty houses in the gardens of which Roman remains might be 

 found at any time, and it is rather hard on the owners or tenants, who 

 have not had their attention called to it. Besides that, the 

 is not nearly so well done as in the old map. 



> London: Sheet 12, N.W. Edition of 189i-9G. 

 1903. I I 



