Corresi')ondence — Herbert L. Haivkms. 28 T 



and the many other errors and fallacies in the paper (we can furnish 

 a long list, if desired), it can only be assumed that before undertaking 

 publication the Council of the Geological Society failed to submit 

 the manuscript to any capable palaeontologist familiar with the zones 

 in question. 



Li the course of the paper we arc mentioned by name more than 

 forty times, not always without derogatory implication in the con- 

 text. It is most unusual to find the Quarterly Journal utilized as the 

 medium of publication for a paper of this character, in which the 

 collective effect of the repeated personal references and the mis- 

 representations is sometimes that of a not well-veiled argumentum 

 ad hominem. We have always understood that one of the chief 

 functions of the Publication Committee of the Geological Society is 

 to prevent the publication of matter which may give just cause of 

 offence, and to provide some guarantee to the Fellows that the 

 substance of communications issued by the Society shall be sound 

 in essentials. Apart from any personal considerations, we, as 

 Fellows, regret that the Council has created so questionable a 

 precedent by the publication of Mr. Lamplugh's elaborate and 

 costly paper in the form in which it has appeared. 



F. L. KiTCHTN. 



J. Pringle. 



THE AGE OF THE SHENLEY LIMESTONE. 



Sir, — In February of last year I published a short report on the 

 Echinoids of the now notorious Shenley Limestone len tides ; and 

 in the follo\\ing month Mr. Lamplugh asked that " judgment in 

 respect of [my] deductions " should be suspended. His " judgment " 

 has now been pronounced and published {Q.J.G.S., Ixxviii, pp. 76-7), 

 and I beg leave to exercise the prerogative of comment before 

 sentence is passed. 



I wish to say at the outset that I have neither desire nor intention 

 to be drawn into a controversy on matters beyond my own observa- 

 tion — the stratigraphical relations of the Shenley limestone are 

 none of my business — and that I am concerned solely with the facies 

 presented by the Echinoid fauna. It is true that most of the 

 specimens are too poorly preserved for rigorous determination ; but 

 it is equally true that a few of them are as satisfactory as could be 

 desired. Is it a coincidence that every one of such specimens 

 indicates an hoiizon at or above the top of the " Upper Greensand 1 " 



Cidaris howerbanki was recognized on three (probably six) 

 radioles, and Mr. Lamplugh suggests that " the determination can 

 hardly be reckoned conclusive ". With all deference I v.-ould submit 

 that in this case the radioles are vastly more distinctive than the 

 test. At least, they belong to a Tylocidaris (type C. davigera), 

 and that genus is not known before the Cenomanian. Arguments 

 based on its generic range (after the style adopted by Mr. Lamplugh 

 in his criticism) would make it reasonable to assume that the Shenley 



