46 Correspondence — A. II. Bloom field. 



YORKSHIRE GEOLOGISTS AND RECORDERS. 

 Sir, — Having a fair knowledge of the names of fossil invertehrata 

 I thought I would have a try at the prize-competition suggested by 

 " Recorder " in your October number (p. 479). Sere is my 'spot' : — 



Ps?7-onotus. Cor- .... Ast-iena,. JSehi-oceras. 



Ccd- .... Agas-sizia. Nicro- . . . Der-oceras. 



Schlot-heimia. ^rw-ioceras. Ambly-ceras. Polym- . . . 



Ver- .... -4n'<?-tites. Oxyn-otvLS. Upt- .... 



I write away from books, but the names seem to be those of 

 Ammonites, and one is tempted to complete the list by the simple 

 addition of oceras ; I fear, however, that even so I should not get 

 a place. 



As a worker and a recorder myself I have often wondered why 

 some writers should so delight in enigmas ; but if the Geological 

 Magazine would start a problem-page for such during the winter 

 months, it might secure fresh subscribers and the wits of the coming 

 generation might be sharpened. 



What ? 



BEMBRIDGE FOSSILS ON CREECHBARROW HILL, ISLE OF 

 PURBECK. 



Sir, — I have just lately received from Mr. Keeping a copy of his 

 paper on the finding of " Bembridge Limestone Fossils on Creechbarrow 

 Hill", and asking my opinion on his paper. I cannot entirely agree 

 with his conclusions, for the following reasons : — 



1. His section (Geol. Mag., October, 1910, p. 437) appears to be 

 taken from Alum Bay, Isle of Wight, and it seems to me that there 

 is not sufficient space between the Chalk and the top of Creechbarrow 

 for the whole series of beds to fit in. 



2. The sand and flints which he regards as " Pleistocene drifts" 

 may be so, but they were seen by the late Mr. Hudleston and myself 

 in a pit (opened under my superintendence) passing under the limestone, 

 and referred to by him (see Geol. Mag., 1902, p. 248). This is 

 a point I desire particularly to call attention to. 



3. As regards the piece of limestone mentioned by Mr. Keeping as 

 having been picked up by a workman from among the gravel " at 

 a depth of about 13 feet", there is considerable room for doubt, 

 bearing in mind the probability of the piece having rolled down into 

 the pit accidentally. It certainly does not disprove Mr. Hudleston's 

 section showing a layer of flints beneath the limestone. The subject 

 is certainly of sufficient interest for some able geologist to take up and 

 investigate independently. Even if the Creechbarrow Limestone 

 fauna and the Bembridge may be identical, they are not necessarily 

 upon the same horizon, and may have existed in Lower Bagshot times. 

 Why not ? 



A. H. Bloomfield. 

 Rose Cottages, Grange Road, 

 Wakeham. 

 October 25, 1910. 



