t 



1 90 Miscellaneous — 



Geological Magazine for March, from wbicli it will be seen that 

 Edward Forbes has certainly the priority. H. W. Bristow. 



Catalogue of Eock Specimens. Second Edition, 1859. 

 P. 86. No. 102. Earthy Limestone, tlie equivalent, probably, of Upper Greensand. 

 Hunstanton, Norfolk. 

 No. 103. Red Ohalk, Earthy Red Limestone, probably equivalent to the Gault. 

 Hunstanton, Norfolk. 



Catalogue of Eock Specimens, p. 157. Third Edition, 1862. 



98. Red Earthy Limestone, Upper Greensand. Hunstanton, Norfolk. 



The Eed Chalk of Hunstanton, as it is sometimes called, has been referred, by 

 different authors, indifferently, to the Gault, Upper Greensand, and Chalk. Its 

 proper position in the geological scale, is, most probably, that which has been as- 

 signed to it by Sir Eoderiek Murchison, who, in 1836, stated it to be the equivalent 

 of the Upper Greensand. The truth of this is corroborated not only by its lying 

 immediately beneath the Chalk, v^hich rests conformably upon it, but by the evidence 

 of its fossils, the preponderance of those peculiar to each of the three formations 

 being in favour of the Lower Greensand. 



Its red colour is attributed to the peroxidation of the green grains of silicate of 

 iron (or glauconite) with which it is charged. By the late Professor Edward Forbes, 

 the Red Chalk was considered to be the equivalent of the Gault. 



99. Earthy Limestone. Hunstanton, Norfolk. 



This deposit was considered by the late Professor Edward Forbes to be, in all 

 probability, the equivalent of the Upper Greensand of the south of England. 

 Museum of Practical Geology, 

 Jermyn St., S.W. 



3vi:zsc:ex.XiJli5]"eotjs. 

 mr. e. ray lankester on scapeaspls and pteraspis. 



In connexion with Magister Schmidt's Note on Pteraspis Kneri 

 (see ante, p. 152), we subjoin the following copy of a letter from 

 Mr. Eay Lankester, published in the Academy for January 1st, 1873, 

 p. 11, which may serve to show that author's views on the supposed 

 connexion between Scaphaspis and Pteraspis, and also to refute the 

 late Dr. Ktinth's theory of the connexion of these anomalous Fishes 

 with the Crustacea. — Edit. Geol. Mag. 



" In the Notes of Scientific Work of the Academy of November 1 

 (vol. iii., p. 412) there is an abstract of a paper by Dr. A. Kiinth 

 on Pteraspis, in which evidence is brought forward to establish a 

 view as to the nature of the organisms included under that term, 

 contrary to that which I (confirming by more extende'd study the 

 views of Agassiz, Salter, and Huxley) have put forward in my 

 Monograph of the Cephalaspidce, published by the Palseontographical 

 Society. It is to me a cause of twofold regret that Dr. Kiinth has 

 perished in the Franco-Prussian war, for not only have we thus lost a 

 chance of obtaining additional knowledge of the Berlin CyatJtaspis, 

 but I shall be unable to obtain from him the admission that his 

 conclusion is not in accordance with the facts. Nevertheless, I am 

 bound to point out how valueless is the evidence of Crustacean 

 affinities for Cyathaspis adduced by him, and how firmly, on the 

 other hand, it is established that the Jleterostraci — or genera 

 Pteraspis, Cyathaspis, Scaphaspis — are the remains of fish. 1st. The 



