52 
a few scattered nodules of phosphate of lime, with some of the 
fossils of the upper green sand usual in the neighbourhood of 
Cambridge, and then the clay succeeds. The character of the 
beds here has been so well described by Mr Seeley’, that I 
need not say more about them, except that I think it open to 
question whether the clay is really gault. There is about Cam- 
bridge a band of clay in the lower part of the chalk, which was 
well shown in the construction of the waterworks at Cherry- 
hinton, and I am rather inclined to think that the Ely clay 
belongs to the same bed. I recollect phosphatic nodules occur- 
ring in connection with it at Cherryhinton. I think the abun- 
dance of shells, and especially of Perna, in the Ely clay, rather 
militates against its being gault. But I merely throw out this 
as a suggestion’, 
Boring by Mr Docwra at Cherryhinton waterworks noted 
an 1854. 
ft. in 
“Soil : , Paani | 0 
Plastic : : é : SH eg) 0 
Upper green sand with fossils 0) “10 
Clunch : i : : 6 0 
Sand : a 0 8 
Gault not pierced : tb AS 0 
82 Gr 
I visited the spot and found belemnites in the “Plastic,” 
and coprolites from the supposed upper green sand. From a 
subsequent cutting made to convey water from near Mr Okes’s 
house, I recollect observing that the above-mentioned “plastic” 
was a stratum in the clunch. This section makes a coprolite 
layer beneath the clay. There may also be one above it. 
1 Geol. Mag. Vol. 11. p. 529. 
At a subsequent visit, 26 Apr. 1867, I saw the lower green sand in sequence 
to this clay, which would make it the true gault. In another part of the pit the 
gault reposed on boulder clay with chalk pebbles. 
