344 Reports and Proceedings. 



the determination of the history of these beds. He combated the 

 notion that the Bone-bed and Stone-bed were identical in their con- 

 tents; and especially dwelt on the differences of the mammalian 

 fauna found in the two. The late Dr. Falconer's views, hitherto 

 prevalent, consisting in regarding the fauna of the Suffolk Bone-bed, 

 Norfolk Stone-bed, and Forest -bed as all of one and the same history 

 and extent, he most strongly opposed. Rhinoceros SchleiermacTieri, 

 Tapirus prisms, Hipparion, Hycena antiqua, and a well-defined 

 Miocene Mastodon (Fauna 1), had been found in the Bone-bed below 

 the Suffolk Crag ; the first three in some abundance, but never in 

 the Stone-bed or Forest-bed of Norfolk. They belonged to a different 

 fauna from that indicated by the other mammals common to the 

 Bone-bed and Stone-bed (Fauna 2), viz.. Mastodon Arvernensis, Equm 

 sp,, and certain forms of Cervus (studied by Mr. Boyd Dawkins). 

 On the other hand, the Elephas meridionalis (Fauna 3), occurring in 

 the Norfolk Stone-bed and in the Forest-bed, had never been found 

 in the Suffolk Bone-bed. Mr. Lankester suggested that the associa- 

 tion of the first two of these three groups of mammals in Suffolk, 

 and of the second two in Norfolk, might be explained by the hypo- 

 thesis that they succeeded one another in time, the first (late Miocene) 

 being confined to Suffolk, and dating from before the Diestien period, 

 since he had obtained a Mastodon tooth of the M. tapiroides form 

 inclosed in a Diestien box-stone ; the third having existed in Norfolk 

 at a period subsequent to the Coralline Crag, but before the 

 Norwich Crag was deposited, chiefly represented in the lower part 

 of the Forest-bed, but also in the Stone-bed, whilst the second group 

 of mammals had existed in both areas at an intermediate period. 

 Mr. Lankester maintained that this was the explanation suited to 

 the facts as they at present stand, and considered that the question 

 was not one to be shirked. All geological inferences from palaeon- 

 tology rest on what is called negative evidence, and hypotheses 

 must be used in investigation. It was shown that the London clay 

 had contributed very little indeed to the list of mammalian remains 

 found in the Suffolk Bone-bed. Six teeth of Coryphodon and four 

 fragments of HyracotTierium were all that could be found in the 

 various collections. 



2. The Suffolk Box-stones, — These nodules the author had previously 

 described as being the remains of a deposit approximately similar 

 to the Diestien or Black Crag of Antwerp, which had preceded the 

 Coralline Crag in Suffolk. An enlarged list of remains of MoUusca 

 from these nodules was given, and a large series of specimens col- 

 lected by the author was presented to the Society's Museum. It was 

 from the Diestien beds, containing Conus Dujardinii, Vbluta auris- 

 leporis, Isocardia lunulata, etc., that the Cetacean remains of the Suffolk 

 Bone-bed were derived. 



3. A new Ziphioid Cetacean from the Bone-led of Suffolk. — The 

 rostrum described in detail was in the collection of the Ipswich 

 Museum. It indicated a Cetacean of the genus Choneziphius, differing 

 from C. planirostris of Cuvier and C. Cuvieri (of Prof. Owen's recent 



