Geological Society of London. 345 



Monograpli), in having a solid projecting apex to the rostrum, and 

 no trace of a bifid structure. Mr. Lankester had recently carefully 

 examined Cuvier's original specimens in Paris, and suggested that 

 possibly Chone%iphius planirostris, C. Cuvieri, this and two other 

 Antwerp specimens, are but varieties of one species, according to age 

 and sex. This form was, however, noted as Choneziphius Packardi. 



4. A new Mastodon from the Suffolk Bone-led. — A Mastodon tooth, 

 inclosed in Diestien matrix, and indicating a form with open and 

 clear valleys, had been obtained by Mr. Baker, of Woodbridge, and. 

 noticed by the author a year ago. He had since, in various collec- 

 tions, detected eight other fragments of a Mastodon, very distinct 

 from M. Arvernensis and approaching M. tapiroides. Possibly the 

 fragments indicated more than one such distinct species. The con- 

 dition of these specimens and other evidence tended to associate them 

 with "the Rhinoceros Sehleiermacheri, Hipparion, etc., forming a fauna 

 quite distinct from and older than that which was indicated by 

 Mastodon Arvernensis. 



5. List of Mammalian Fossils of the Suffolk Bone-hed, with reference to 

 Collections containing them, and Number of Specimens. — The object of 

 this list was to furnish an idea of the actual and relative abundance 

 of the various mammalia, and to afford those interested in the matter 

 information as to the much scattered materials in private collections. 



Discussion.— Mr. Boyd Dawkins had arrived at a different conclusion from the 

 author, though the discoveries recorded in works on palaeontology showed a marked 

 difference between the Suffolk and Norfolk Crag Faunas, such as was not borne out by 

 an examination of collections. He considered that the forms of Ruminants showed 

 a contemporaneity between them. The supposed Cervus dicranoceros of Owen was, 

 in fact, another form of deer, which was common to the base of both the Suffolk and 

 Norfolk Crags. The Elephas meridionalis and Mastodon Arvernensis had been found 

 side by side in Norfolk, at Epplesheim, and in the Val d' Arno, and were, therefore, 

 probably contemporary. The different lithological character in the two counties was 

 probably due to the different nature of the underlying beds. 



Sir Charles LyeU was much struck with the perfect identity between the boxstones 

 of Suffolk and some exceptional Antwerp beds which he had seen at Berchem, and 

 considered that this was sufficient to prove they belonged to the same deposit. He 

 thought that the area between Belgium and England might have contained a large 

 number of terrestrial beds, which eventually left a certain number of their contents 

 to be mingled together in the lower beds of the later marine deposits. 



The Bev. J. Gunn produced from the Bed Crag at Waldringfield a portion of the 

 tooth of Elephas meridionalis. He insisted on the complex nature of the forest-beds, 

 which consisted of two parts : the lower, estuarine, containing E. meridionalis and 

 extinct forms of deer ; and the upper, terrestrial, with remains of E. antiquus and 

 much altered forms of E. meridionalis, approaching, in some respects, E. primigenius. 



Prof. Bamsay pointed out the necessity of there being a great intermixture of 

 remains of various characters and ages in such deposits as the Crag. If, for instance, 

 Auvergne, which had not been submerged since Eocene times, were now depressed 

 below the sea, future geologists might find the remains of Miocene animals intermin- 

 gled with those of the present day. 



Mr. Bay Lankester, in reply, contended that the Miocene forms of Hipparion, 

 Rhinoceros Sehleiermacheri, the trUophodont Mastodon, and other Miocene animals, 

 had never been found in the Norfolk beds ; while Elephas meridionalis had not been 

 found in those of Suffolk. His conclusions were based on long study of collections, 

 and differed from those advanced in books, especially from Dr. Falconer's views. He 

 maintained that his hypothesis accounted for the facts mentioned by Mr. Dawkins, 

 whilst Mr. Dawkins's hypothesis did not account for the facts adduced in the paper. 

 The specimen brought by Mr. Gunn was decidedly not from the Suffolk bone-bed, but 

 from overlying beds. 



