1871.] JITDD PUNFIELD JFORMATIQlf. 227 



from the deposits in Eastern Spain we have thirty- nine or forty in 

 Britain. The fauna was, indeed, precisely the same. He referred to 

 several of the species, and intimated his intention of describing and 

 figuring those forms which have not been. detected in the Spanish 

 deposits. 



Mr. Seeley stated that he could not agree with Mr. Judd in his 

 conclusions, and that he objected to the method adopted by him. 

 He had examined all the sections, and was convinced that they 

 showed neither a physical nor a palseontological break, and that the 

 several beds could be so well traced that the base of the section 

 at Swanage was superior to that seen in the section at Brixton, 

 in the Isle of "Wight. He identified the shell noticed as a Vicarya 

 as a Greensand form. There was nothing in the fossils to indicate a 

 separation from the Lower Greensand, of which he regarded these 

 beds palseontologically as forming a part. Each division was to be 

 traced westwards continuously, but changing in mineral character. 

 Mr. Seeley objected to the correlation of these deposits with others 

 occurring in Spain or any other distant locality, and considered the 

 community of fossils not sufiicient to establish such a correlation. 

 He objected also to the introduction of a new term into geological 

 nomenclature. 



Mr. Jenb;ih"8 remarked on the value of Mr. Judd's description of 

 the sections, even if his deductions were to be rejected. He regarded 

 the establishment of a Punfield formation as unnecessary, and cited 

 the Purbeck and Portland beds as examples of analogous freshwater 

 and marine deposits. He indicated that the Weald may be regarded 

 as the freshwater equivalent of the Lower Neocomian. He doubted 

 whether the shell referred to Vicarya really belonged to that genus. 

 Ammonites Deshayesii was said to have a restricted range in time. 

 Mr. Jenkins remarked that it was very widely diffused, and there- 

 fore should have a wide range in time, which would invalidate the 

 argument founded on it. 



The Rev, 0. Fisher stated that in 1853 he had observed a fault 

 cutting off" the Gault from the Punfield beds, and that its position 

 might account for the disappearance of a great mass of Lower 

 Greensand. 



Mr. Judd, in reply, said that he did not propose the term Punfield 

 formation as a definitive term, but only as a matter of convenience. 

 He believed that strata could be positively identified by the organic 

 remains contained in them, although the method may have been 

 grossly abused. Physical investigations alone led to nothing but 

 confusion, as might be seen by the stratigraphical attempts of the 

 predecessors of William Smith. The name Vicarya for the shell 

 which had been referred to was only provisionally adopted, on the 

 authority of De Vemeuil and other writers. 



