Dr. C. A. Matley — Bunter Pehble-beds in Midlands. 213 



growth of the individual worms. No other organisms occur in these 

 j)ebbles, the age of which is uncertain, but one of the types is 

 certainly the Tigillites dufresnoyi, Hon. [Trachyderma serrata, 8alt.) 

 of the Gres de May. 



Next in abundance come the Brachiopoda, preserved in about 

 seventy pebbles. A preliminary examination, which was all I was 

 able to give them, showed that the species agreed very closely with 

 those found in the Budleigh Salterton pebbles and that they yielded the 

 three faunas already known to occur both in the Devonshire beds and 

 in other collections of Bunter pebbles from the Midlands. The three 

 faunas are those of (1) the Gres Armoricain, (2) the Gres de May, and 

 (3) the Devonian, and the typical species are distinctly southern forms 

 that are not found in situ nearer than the North of France and tlie 

 South of England. The Gres de May is the most abundantly repre- 

 sented of the three, Orthis [Dalmanella) hidleighensis, Dav., being by 

 far the commonest species, as over thirty pebbles contain this form 

 and in a number of them the specimens occur gregariously. Other 

 Orthides in the collection probably also belong to this formation, 

 as, for example, Orthis cf. berthoisi, var. erratica and some other 

 species, not yet determined, which seem to be of approximately 

 Bala age. 



The Gres Armoricain is well represented by Lingula lesueuri, Ron. 

 (about ten examples), by fewer examples of Lingida hawhei, and by 

 one specimen which is probably Binoholus Irimonti. Some small 

 LingiilidiB have also been obtained, which may be immature examples 

 of one or both of the above-mentioned species. 



The Devonian forms seem to be rarer, but my collection contains 

 several specimens of Spirifer, of which some seem to be identical with 

 the form recorded by Davidson as Spirifer verneuili, and it is 

 associated with Cmnarotcechia cf. elUptica, Schnur. The other 

 Spirifers have not yet been fully studied. 



In addition to the above there are a number of Lamellibranchs, 

 a few pygidia and other fragments of Trilobites, and occasional 

 Echinoderm-remains, etc. Though they have not yet been examined, 

 they will no doubt confirm and extend the results yielded by the 

 Brachiopods. In order that they may be available for future research 

 I have handed over the whole collection to the Geological Survey 

 Museum, Jermyn Street. 



The palaeontological evidence must, I think, be accepted as con- 

 clusive that the quartzite and quartzose-sandstone pebbles containing 

 these fossils caine from some southerly point, though there is 

 room for speculation as to whether they were derived from the area 

 in which the fossils are to be found at the present day, viz. Normandy 

 and the region adjacent, or from some tract in the South or South- 

 East of England now buried beneath Mesozoic or Cainozoic deposits. 

 This being so, why should not the great bulk of the associated non- 

 fossiliferous pebbles, which cannot be distinguished externally by 

 shape, size, colour, or texture from the fossiliferous ones, have come 

 from the same area? I have seen something of the Old Red Con- 

 glomerates of Scotland, and recognize the striking resemblance that 

 their contained quartzite pebbles bear (except as regards fossils) to 



