284 Correspondence — F. L. Kitchin & J. Pringle. 



Tlie publication of work so fundamentally unsound is the affair 

 of the author and of the Greological Society. Of more concern to 

 us is the misleading character of many of Mr. Lamplugh's numerous 

 references to us and to our published views. Misrepresentation is so 

 frequent throughout the paper that we feel bound to protest. A 

 full analysis would occupy many pages of print ; but we may mention 

 briefly a few examples by way of illustration. On p. 13 of his paper, 

 referring to a particular mass of " greensand " below the Gault 

 seen by him in 1.904:, Mr. Lamplugh suggests that we expressed our 

 opinion that this bed is of Upper Greensand age without having 

 seen the rock. He omits to say that our view was based on a set of 

 specimens obtained by himself and deposited in the collection of the 

 Geological Survey. These specimens are always available for 

 examination, and anybody who understands the subject will find that 

 they speak for themselves. Mr. Lamplugh curtly dismisses the con- 

 sidered opinion of Mr. T. H. Withers, on some cirripede -remains 

 from this bed. Mr. Withers is a leading authority on fossil cirripedes 

 and their evolutionary characters, concerning which Mr. Lamplugh 

 is not qualified to speak. Wo have complete faith in the opinion 

 of Mr. Withers on this subject. 



Again, on p. 15, when referring to a certain mass of clay ascribed 

 by us to the Upper Gault, Mr. Lamplugh's words, " and therefore 

 including this section in the area supposed to be inverted ", wrongly 

 introduce an implication that we have never adopted. Once again 

 (p. 8) : '" Dr. Kitchin and Mr. Pringle record an ammonite of the 

 auritus-group, supposed to be Hoplites cafillus (J. de C. Sowerby) 

 . . ." (See also p. 78.) We neither ascribed any ammonite seen 

 by us to that species nor referred the sj^ecies to the auritus-grovLj). 

 And, as a further example, on p. 18 Mr. Iiamplugh states that we hav& 

 described and figured " the tailing out southwards " of the Silty 

 beds at the entrance to the Miletree Farm pit. What we actually 

 described and figured was a striking unconformity between Upper 

 Gault and Lower Greensand at the opposite (northward) end of the 

 pit. Although this is the m.ost important feature of the section, it is. 

 left unmentioned by Mr. Lamplugh. 



Such a mode of representing our views must tend to discredit 

 us unfairly in the eyes of uninformed readers. The same misleading: 

 method is too noticeable also in Mr. Lamplugh's presentation of 

 geological facts. For example, on p. 41 he refers to fossils of the 

 Shenley Hill limestone found many years ago by the Geological 

 Survey at Long Crendon, and leads the reader to believe that these- 

 came from " calcareous stone " found there below the Gault. la 

 reality there is no particle of evidence for that belief. In the original 

 manuscript record of the section from which the specimens were 

 obtained the presence of Gault is not mentioned. The Gault of that 

 locality is underlain by a Purbeck limestone ; but the fossils were 

 stated to have been found just above Portland limestone, which was 

 then worked at its outcrop in openings immediately adjacent to a 



