Sec. 15.] detailed descriptions. 209 



Cidaris spines and fragments of other Echinidaj, 

 Styloccenia Vicaryi, M. Ed. and Hairae. 

 Troclioserls P 



Trochocyatlius Vandenbeckii, M. Ed. and Haime. 

 Nummulites perforata, D'Orb. 

 N. Brogniarti, D'Arch. 

 * N. exponens or N. spira (probably both). 



Possibly nummulitic limestone again occurs beneath the section 

 above detailed^ for unrolled fragments are seen in abundance just east of 

 the above beds in the Taptee. These may, however, have been carried 

 up stream by an eddy when the river was in flood. 



On leaving the section and going to the north for a few yards, trap 



is distinctly seen west of the uppermost laterite. Upon this trap laterite 



comes in again. The rocks in the section above quoted dip west 10° to 



25° south, at an angle of about 7° ; that is, they dip beneath the trap. 



At first this appeared to be a distinct case of interstratification of 



the uppermost traps with the nummulitics ; and 



Apparent interstratifi- 

 cation of trap and num- from the very trappean appearance of the laterites 



of Nowgama, Turkesur, &c., this conclusion was 

 strengthened. But the evidence of enormous denudation of the traps 

 in pre-nummuHtie and nummulitic times seen about Euttunpoor and 

 elsewhere militated so strongly against this view that the Taptee section 

 was re-examined, and it was found that the apparent superposition of 

 a trap bed upon the nummulitic beds at the mouth of the Ehen might be 

 explained by a fault. 



The laterite seen resting upon the trap to the west of the nummu- 

 litics is clearly a continuation of the bed so con- 

 Explained by a fault. 



spicuously seen at Nerolee and Moonjhlao. The 



nummulitics to the east (apparently beneath the trap) cannot certainly 



* In this list Orlitolites Mantelli does not occur, nor Orhitoides ephippium. The 

 latter certainly abounded in the upper part of the bed, and so, I think, did the shell to which 

 the former name is applied by Dr. Carter. The specimens had probably been mislaid or 

 separated from the Gasteropoda, &c. 



c 1 ( 371 ) 



