W. IT. Hudleston — Creechharroic in Purbech. 201 



No object would be gained by attempting a technical description 

 of fossils so obscured b}'^ incrustation as are these Creechbarrow 

 Gasteropoda, but I must direct the attention of the reader to the 

 accompanying Plate XL According to my ideas, Figs. 1 and 5 

 represent the back and front view respectively of a form wliich may 

 possibly be a member of the Melaniadas. The shell shown in 

 Fig. 1 is enclosed in a series of cysts ; the one shown in Fig. 5 

 appears to me to represent the same species. It is true that the 

 a,perture, in its present condition, gives us very little insight into 

 the true character of the shell, but this is due to disfiguration from 

 several causes. Fig. 6 may represent a section of the same species, 

 a,nd here again the elongate character of the whorls points to some 

 member of the Melaniad^ rather than to Palvdina. 



In the case of Fig. 9 the aperture has been better preserved, and 

 few would doubt that this specimen represents a Paludina. It most 

 resembles P. concinna, Sowerby, which Mr. Bullen Newton ('•' British 

 Oligocene and Eocene Mollusca") regards as the same as P. lenta. 

 Although there are plenty of casts in the limestone which one would 

 refer without hesitation to Paludina, this is the only specimen of 

 a shell which shows the Paludina mouth with certainty. 



Figs. 7 and 8 of the Plate represent specimens (the latter in 

 section) which have suffered terribly from incrustation, to the 

 complete obliteration of the true external form ; yet I think that in 

 them we may recognize Melanopsis brevis, Sowerby, described from 

 the Bembridge series. I have no doubt that a more extended search 

 would yield a larger series of fossils, since the few specimens of 

 Gasteropoda which have been figured were derived from a very 

 limited area, viz. the summit pit. 



As regards any other fossils from the Creechbarrow Beds, there is 

 a fragment something like Ditrupa in one of the more earthy lime- 

 stones. A bivalve not unlike a Lucina was also obtained from 

 a fragment of an ironstone grit found on the surface between 

 the summit and the eastern spur, but, as I have never seen this 

 particular bed in situ, too much importance should not be attached 

 to this ' find.' 



Conclusion. — The question of the actual age of the Creechbarrow 

 Limestone is one which I have naturally deferred to the last, in 

 order that we might be in possession of all the available evidence. 

 Its approximate age is clear enough as being Lower Tertiary, but 

 the question now more particularly to be solved is this — Are we to 

 believe that the Creechbarrow Limestone is really of Lower Bagshot 

 age and rather low down in the Bagshot series, as appearances 

 might seem to indicate, or are we to believe that it is of Oligocene 

 age and a local representative of the Bembridge Limestone ? It has 

 already been admitted that hitherto I have failed to settle this 

 question from a study of the stratigraphy of the hill, although the 

 bulging of the Pipeclay series is certainly in favour of the view that 

 the Creechbarrow Beds do not overlie the Pipeclay series, as must 

 be the case if they or any portion of them represent the Bembridge 

 Limestone. 



