Reviews—Keeping’s Fossils of Upware. O18 
«The Potton and Wicken Phosphatic Deposits”? (1875). Upware, 
we may mention, is a hamlet in the parish of Wicken; hence the 
two names, as Mr. Keeping points out, have been used synonymously 
in descriptions of the “ Lower Greensand” (or Neocomian) coprolite 
beds, worked in the district. Upware is situated on the Cam between 
Ely and Cambridge, and being, as its Inn denotes, “ Five miles from 
anywhere,” is so far out of the beaten track, that only the great 
interest of its geology has brought it into notice. And here we 
venture to find fault with Mr. Keeping for using the name Upware 
instead of Wicken for these Neocomian deposits. The title on the 
cover is given thus, ‘‘ The Fossils of Upware, etc.,” whereas, as is 
well known, the terms ‘“‘ Upware beds,” ‘“‘ Upware rock,” and “ Up- 
ware limestone,” are commonly used for the Corallian beds so well 
represented at the same locality. Indeed these older beds form the 
main mass, for a distance of nearly three miles, of the low ridge or 
promontory that here rises out of the Fens. Little Brickhill, the 
other locality, whose Neocomian fossils are now particularly described 
by Mr. Keeping, is a village, about 24 miles east of Bletchley Station, 
not far from Fenny Stratford, and in Buckinghamshire (not Bedford- 
shire as stated). 
Mr. Keeping commences with a general account of the deposits, 
referring of course to the labours of Mr. J. F. Walker, who first 
described the Neocomian beds of Upware (GroLocicaL MaGazing, 
Vol. IV. p. 809, 1867) ; and to those of his father, Mr. H. Keeping, 
to whom we were indebted for further important details, and whose 
original diagram (GuonocicaL Magazine, Vol. V. p. 273) is now 
reproduced with some alterations. Mr. H. Keeping then remarked 
on the unconformity of the Kimmeridge Clay to the “Coral Rag,” 
observing that, ‘‘at the time of the deposition of the Kimmeridge 
Clay, a quantity of its broken and often rounded fragments became 
intermixed with it, so that in the vicinity of junction it actually 
presents the appearance of Boulder-drift.” In the revised section 
now published, the unconformity of the Coral Rag and Kimmeridge 
Clay is not maintained, Mr. W. Keeping believing the beds to be 
conformable, and that ‘‘the destructive work of the removal of the 
Kimmeridge Clay went on during the earlier times of the formation 
of the Lower Greensand, and one of its results was the production 
of a curious deposit of irregular broken fragments,” etc., in fact the 
bed previously mentioned. This is an important correction. The 
Neocomian beds of Brickhill were described by Mr. W. Keeping in 
the Gzotocicat MacazineE for 1875, and although he has nothing to 
add to the stratigraphical details, our knowledge of the fauna has 
largely increased since then. 
This Essay is mainly occupied with a detailed account of the 
organic remains—and the separation of the “indigenous” from the 
“derived” fauna. Belonging to the former 176 species are known, 
and among these certain Sponges, Brachiopoda, and Polyzoa are 
conspicuous. Perhaps the most interesting are the Brachiopods, 
upwards of 15,000 specimens of which have been accumulated in 
the Woodwardian Museum, from which have been selected a series 
