J. E. Taylor — On the 'Red' and 'Norwich^ Crags. 315 



expect. At the same time, the anomaly has puzzled many geologists 

 of the so-called Norwich, and mis-called " Mammaliferous "-Crag, 

 having such an extension even in Eed Crag districts. Only recently, 

 in a paper read before the Geologists' Association, and published in 

 the Geol. Mag. for June last. No. 84, p. 256, the Messrs. Bell, 

 who have worked the organic remains of these beds in an admirable 

 manner, stated that, from palaeontological and other evidence, they 

 concluded that the upper portions of the Eed Crag ought to be 

 associated with the " Mammaliferous " Crag. A little ambiguity 

 arises here from not distinguishing the bipartite division of the 

 ^' Mammaliferous" or Norwich Crag. 



A few weeks ago, whilst on a visit to my friend Mr. Packard, of 

 Ipswich, I had the opportunity of going over the " debatable" 

 ground once more, and of adding to my notes on this important sub- 

 ject. The result has been that I have arrived at a conclusion which, 

 to me, seems the only one which can finally settle this controverted 

 matter. 



Section of the Eed and Chillesford Crags at Butley. 



1 and 2. CMUesford Clay. U.C. Upper Crag. C. Crag. L.C. Lower Crag. T. Talus. 



In the famous section in the stackyard at Chillesford, as well as 

 in other pits in the neighbourhood, notably one at the " Neutral 

 Farm" at Butley, the lower beds seem to be composed of Eed and 

 Norwich Crag shells almost equally. The Butley section is about 

 twenty feet high, and displays this peculiarity even more than at 

 ■Chillesford. The lower portion of the Crag here is seen to be very 

 greatly comminuted, and deposited in strong lines of false bedding. 

 Both these facts indicate shallowish water action. The same pheno- 

 menon is visible in the lower portions of the section at Chillesford, 

 and elsewhere. At all the sections in this neighbourhood we find 

 the strata becoming more regularly deposited towards the top, and 

 freer from signs of current action. Not only so, but in these beds 

 we have a marked absence of Eed Crag shells, and a thorough Upper 

 Norwich, or "Chillesford" facies. 



Mr. Prestwich and other writers have drawn attention to the fact 

 that the greater part of the Coralline Crag was ground up and re- 

 deposited during the subsequent Eed Crag period. In like manner, 

 I fully believe that when the submergence took place which brought 



