﻿W. 
  T0PLEY 
  ON 
  AREAS 
  OF 
  APPARENT 
  UPHEAVAL. 
  195 
  

  

  must 
  have 
  been 
  of 
  enormous 
  depth 
  ; 
  but 
  of 
  this 
  we 
  had 
  no 
  evidence. 
  

   He 
  could 
  not 
  believe 
  that 
  the 
  Chalk 
  or 
  any 
  other 
  sedimentary 
  de- 
  

   posit 
  could 
  in 
  the 
  process 
  of 
  deposition 
  assume 
  such 
  dome-like 
  

   forms 
  as 
  would 
  be 
  necessary 
  under 
  the 
  author's 
  hypothesis. 
  

  

  Prof. 
  Hughes 
  considered 
  that 
  there 
  were 
  two 
  kinds 
  of 
  thickening 
  — 
  

   (1) 
  by 
  deposits 
  from 
  a 
  shore-line, 
  or 
  (2) 
  by 
  sediment 
  accumulating 
  

   in 
  a 
  basin. 
  The 
  instances 
  adduced 
  appeared 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  result 
  of 
  

   the 
  thickening 
  of 
  strata 
  in 
  a 
  basin. 
  He 
  accepted 
  the 
  cautions 
  of 
  

   the 
  author 
  as 
  to 
  hasty 
  deductions 
  from 
  the 
  dip 
  of 
  strata 
  at 
  the 
  

   surface. 
  

  

  Mr. 
  Bauerman 
  considered 
  that 
  the 
  Lower 
  Lias 
  was 
  of 
  greater 
  

   thickness 
  at 
  Burford 
  than 
  supposed 
  by 
  the 
  author. 
  

  

  Mr. 
  Toplet, 
  in 
  reply, 
  stated 
  that 
  he 
  did 
  not 
  dispute 
  the 
  fact 
  of 
  

   the 
  Pakeozoic 
  rocks 
  being 
  much 
  disturbed 
  and 
  crumpled, 
  nor 
  did 
  

   he 
  deny 
  that 
  there 
  may 
  have 
  been 
  some 
  disturbance 
  of 
  the 
  upper 
  

   beds. 
  What 
  he 
  wished 
  to 
  point 
  out 
  was 
  that 
  the 
  disregarding 
  of 
  

   the 
  fact 
  that 
  strata 
  thickened 
  in 
  certain 
  directions 
  might 
  be, 
  and 
  

   had 
  been, 
  a 
  fruitful 
  source 
  of 
  error. 
  

  

  