284 Reports and Proceedings — Geological Society of London. 



certain peculiarities claimed for the Permian form by the founder of 

 the genus, Prof. King, viz. certain " denticles, vesicles, and hemi- 

 spheric bodies, similar to those observed in Cellaria salicornea." 

 These the author failed to find, but observed on the cell-face of this 

 form a strong defensive spine, hollow at the base, which, when worn, 

 gave an appearance which resembled the above structures. A 

 denticle-like process also seems only to be the unequal wearing 

 down of the cell-mouth. The author redescribed the genus, as 

 well as a new Silurian species, for which he proposes the name of 

 Thamniscits antiquus. It is from the Dudley limestone, and is in 

 the Woodwardian Collection at Cambridge. It is not rare, but is 

 generally too fragmentary for description. 



3. " On the Occurrence of a New Species of Phyllopora in the 

 Permian Limestones." By George W. Shrubsole, Esq., P.G.S. 



The specimen on which this species is founded is mentioned in an 

 early paper by Prof. Sedgwick on the Magnesian Limestone. It was 

 afterwards named Fenestella ramosa by Prof. Phillips, and considered 

 by Prof. King identical with Thamniscus diibius. But with neither 

 of these genera has it any relationship, as it really belongs to King's 

 genus Phyllopora, founded to include certain Polyzoa formerly re- 

 ferred to Betepora, a modern genus whose characteristics cannot be 

 detected among the remains of the Palseozoic Polyzoa. The author 

 described the characters of the species, and traced the history of the 

 genus, which, in its range from Lower Silurian to Permian times, 

 is characterized by two distinct types of species. 



4. " On the Relations of the Eocene and Oligocene Strata in the 

 Hampshire Basin." By Prof. John W. Judd, F.R.S., Sec. G.S. 



The section at Whitecliflf Bay, in the Isle of Wight, affords us the 

 means of determining the true order of succession of nearly 2000 

 feet of Tertiary strata, and is therefore employed as a standard to 

 which to refer the strata seen in sections where the order of suc- 

 cession is not so clear. The author supported the views of Prof. 

 Prestwich as to the limits of the Bracklesham series, as opposed to 

 the opinions expressed on the subject by the Eev. 0. Fisher. He 

 pointed out the confusion which has arisen from the coi'relation of 

 certain strata in the Hampshire basin with the barren Lower and 

 Upper Bagshots of the London area, in which fossils are so rare as 

 to render their geological age somewhat doubtful. To the Lower 

 Bagshot some authors have referred 660 feet of the strata seen at 

 Alum Bay ; while other authors have restricted that name to about 

 73 feet of the same section. The age of the Upper Bagshot of the 

 London basin is admitted by all authors to be vei'y doubtful. The 

 only way to avoid the confusion unavoidable from using the same 

 names for strata, the correlation of which was so hypothetical, was 

 to employ local names for both sets of beds. He proposed to refer 

 to the freshwater sands below the Bracklesham and Bournemouth 

 strata, containing a distinctive flora, as " the Studland beds," and 

 the sands above the Barton clay by the old name of " the Headon- 

 Hill Sands." 



Above these sands are a series of clays only about 40 feet thick 



