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



specifying Muzzle (West Norfolk) and Speeton (p. 51). He is 

 evidently unaware that he is here referring to Upper Gaalt deposits. 

 The Inocerami in question are found at those localities in overlapping 

 Upper C-ault, and are not known to occur at any place near the 

 true base of the Gault. 



The age of the Gault in Harris's pit can only be determined by 

 means of its fossils ; yet the example just cited shows that 

 Mr. Lamplugh is incapable of interpreting the evidence by which 

 alone a true correlation can be made. This statement applies also^ 

 to his discussion of the ammonites from the lower part of the clay 

 in that pit (pp. 78-9). His remarks show such superficiality and 

 confusion of ideas that they are ridiculous as well as valueless. 

 No informed palaeontologist having any regard either for his own 

 reputation or for sound stratigraphy could be persuaded to assign 

 the lower part of the clay at Harris's pit to the Lower Gault, or even 

 to a horizon as low as the basal part of the Upper Gault. A strati- 

 grapher, however, ascribes it without scruple to the Lower Gault, 

 with the benison of the Geological Society of London to sapport 

 him (1903, 1922). 



Mr. Lamplugh's method of dealing with the fauna of the 

 Cenomanian limestone is equally futile. Why trouble to say so 

 much about Terehrirostra neocomiensis and T. arduennensis when 

 the forms found in the limestone at Shenley Hill are identical with 

 the later, extreme evolutionary types characteristic of a low 

 Cenomanian horizon in France and in this country ? Why pass so 

 lightly over Cato-pycjus columharius, Nudeolites lacunosus, Cidaris 

 howerbanki, Rhtjnchonella grasiana, Pecten curvatus, Isoarca ohesa, 

 Cyphonotus incertus, and other telling species ? If, as Mr. Lamplugh 

 believes, Leymeriella regularis occurs indigenously in the same 

 bed as these, then the whole basis of zonal palaaontology, as practised 

 daily by professionals like ourselves and by innumerable amateurs 

 the "world over, is false. But practical results prove that the con- 

 trary is the case. The firm foundation upon v,^hich accurate strati- 

 graphy has been built is not yet shaken ; the method of William Smith 

 is not to be discredited by the assumptions of Mr. Lamplugh. 



Mr. Lamplugh also speaks of Inoceramus concentricus as coming 

 from the limestone. Whether the limestone be ascribed to the 

 " mammillatvs-zone " or to a Cenomanian horizon, it is in either 

 case safe to assert that this species does not occur in the bed ; it may 

 probably have been collected from the basal bed of the Upper Gault, 

 with which the limestone-len tides are found accidentally associated. 

 Mr. Lamplugh states that the absence of certain species speaks 

 against our view concerning the age of the limestone, apparently 

 unaware that some of these (for instance, Pecten asper) are not found 

 at the horizon in Wiltshire with which we correlate that rock. 



Mr. Lamplugh's failure to determine correctly the age of the 

 limestone and the clay that overlies it invalidates the whole of his 

 paper. Judging by the above examples of palteontological ineptitude 



