46 Correspondence — Mr. G. W. Lamplugh — Mr. F. A. B«{]ier. 



accompaniment in this latitude of heavy streams and flood-waters, 

 does afford a sufficient explanation of all the known facts. 



The landslips of Chalk on the Antrim coast, described by Professor 

 Cole, seem to me insufficient even to account for the masses of Chalk 

 in the Drift at Cromer. It is quite certain that the explanation will 

 not apply to the masses of Upper and Lower Lias shale which 

 occupy similar positions amid the Basement Boulder-clay in Filey 

 Bay and at Bridlington in Yorkshire, nor to the patch of Speeton 

 clay which has surmounted the Chalk of Flamborough Mead, nor to 

 the isolated shreds of sea-bottom and fresh-water deposits contained 

 in the Boulder-clay in numerous localities on the same coast. 



The position and character of these masses render the landslip 

 theory quite inapplicable to them ; yet their position is so closely 

 analogous to that of the Chalk boulders of Cromer that we are 

 compelled to suppose a common method of transportation. 



There is a slight inaccuracy of fact in the Bev. E. Hill's paper, 

 which, though not of much importance as it stands, ma} r as well be 

 corrected at once lest it reappear unexpectedly as a corner-stone in 

 the argument of another writer on the subject. After mentioning 

 that chalk-drift is found in Leicestershire up to 800 feet, the author 

 adds, " which is far higher than any Northern Chalk." But. the 

 Chalk Wolds in Yorkshire rise to slightly over 800 feet in Garrowby 

 Hill (808 feet), and continue for several miles in that vicinity to 

 reach elevations of between 750 and 800 feet. 



Dowlas Isle of Man. g w La3IPLUGH . 



December Sth, 189o. 



ZONES OF THE CARBONIFEROUS. 



Sir, — British palaeontologists, as well as stratigraphical geologists, 

 will welcome the news of Messrs. E. J. Garwood and J. E. Marr 

 (Geol. Mag., Dec. IV, Vol. II, pp. 550-552, December, 1895), 

 that there is some hope of dividing the British Carboniferous 

 Limestone into zones. But, when they direct the attention of local 

 observers to note the accurate horizons and localities of fossils, why 

 should they pass by the numerous Crinoidea of our own Mountain 

 Limestone as unworthy of special attention ? From a study of 

 these animals in North America, many divisions and correlations 

 have been made in the beds there called "sub-Carboniferous," and 

 the biological results obtained have been most valuable. But in 

 Britain, as I pointed out some years ago, a true palaeontology of 

 our numerous Carboniferous Crinoidea remains impossible so long 

 as all specimens are labelled, like the vast majority of those in our 

 rich national collection, " Carboniferous Limestone, Yorkshire ? " 

 I am certain that attention to the Crinoidea would render results 

 quite as important as those to be derived from " the Corals, Trilobites, 

 Brachiopods, and Cephalopods " ; and if the committee referred to 

 will only accept my services, I shall be pleased to have the chance 

 of examining any specimens which have attached to them labels of 

 scientific value. F. A. Bather. 



British Museum (Nat. Hist.), 3rd Deamber, 19S5. 



