﻿320 Notices of Memoirs — H. Norton, on Norfolk Forest-hed. 



to their Polyzoal affinities. He remarks that the little bodies appear 

 to come very near the recent genus >criiparia, and its ally Hipijothoa. 

 He adds, there is also a Cretaceous species of the genus JEtea 

 (JE. anguinaria) closely related to them. The present form need 

 not be mistaken for either of the following Palaeozoic species : — 

 Ilippothoa Voigtiana, King, Permian Foss. England, 1850, p. 31, 

 t. 3, f. 13; Gienitz, Dyas, p. 120, t. 20, f. 24, 25 ; R. infiata, Hall, 

 Nicholson, Ann. Nat. Hist., 1875, vol. xv. p. 123, t. 11, f. 1. As 

 regards size, II. inflata, Hall, approaches nearest to our Carboniferous 

 forms, but it is much larger. I propose to call this Ilippothoa ? 

 Hindisii, and hope before long to give a more detailed description 

 and figure. 



{To be continued.) 



I. — The Fokest-bed of East Norfolk. By Henry Norton, F.G.S. 

 Paper read before the Norwich Geological Society, May 1st, 

 1877. — Norwich Mercury, May 5th. 

 fnHE author first refers to an excursion made to Mundesley and 

 i Happisburgh by members of the Norwich Geological Society, 

 an account of which was published in the Eastern Daily Press, 

 of February 15th. It Avas therein stated that "several stools of trees, 

 with roots branching out, were seen, and proved on examination to 

 have grown upon the bright blue clay of the soil of the forest." 

 Having been unable to attend the excursion, he went two days later 

 for the special purpose of ascertaining whether the stumps of trees 

 observed were actually in situ as they grew. The few he was 

 enabled to examine, although they had a false appearance of having 

 grown where found, had their roots broken off, and could not have 

 lived on the spots. They might very naturally have been drifted 

 into such positions. 



The poor result of his visit induced him to examine what is the 

 evidence on which the belief in the Forest-bed rests ; and the main 

 object of the present paper was to point out how unsatisfactory were 

 the statements of those who have written upon the subject. He 

 referred to the observations of E. C. Taylor, Eev. J. Layton, S. 

 Woodward, J. Trimmer, and to those of Mr. Prestwich and Mr. 

 John Gunn. Lyell had never seen the stools of trees in situ. The 

 statements made by these geologists were all vaguely general. No 

 one had taken a particular stump, examined the condition of the 

 roots, whether whole or broken, and told us their actual length and 

 their position on the ground. It was known that remains of oak 

 have been found, but we were never told that any particular stool 

 was oak ; nor have we ever been told that any particular trunk was 

 ever found lying near its own stool. It was, in fact, only too clear 

 that our observers in general did not appreciate the value of precise 

 facts as opposed to loose generalities. 



Mr. Norton was ready to admit the high, very high probability, 

 of a forest in situ, but contended that there was yet no absolute 

 proof of it. H.B.W. 



