446 e. g. h. price on tiie beds between the 



Discussion. 



Mr. Whitaker said that it was more than thirteen years since 

 he examined the Dover section, and then these palaeontological 

 zones had not been invented ; Mr. Drew's note on Lydden Spout 

 was written some years earlier. He was glad that Mr. Price divided 

 the Grey Chalk and Chalk Marl as he had himself suggested in a 

 paper on the Chalk of Beachy Head read before the Society, and 

 published in the Geological Magazine. He had been unable to find 

 the Chalk Rock ; and Mr. Price had not met with it ; in fact it does 

 not exist here as it does on the northern side of the London Basin, 

 where it occurs between the Upper and Lower Chalk. He objected 

 to the term Chloritic Marl, which is nowhere satisfactorily defined : 

 in one place this name is given to Upper Greensand, in another 

 to the bed forming the base of the Chalk. It has not only been 

 thus applied to different deposits, but is itself a misnomer, inasmuch 

 as it contains no chlorite, the green grains being glauconite. He 

 was glad to see that the term was not employed by Mr. Price. With 

 regard to the " Zone of Ammonites varians" spoken of by Mr. Price, 

 he inquired to which of the beds III., IV., and Y. the term was 

 applied, or whether it applied to all of them. He regarded the Tot- 

 ternhoe Stone, in which that species was plentiful, as the top of the 

 Chalk Marl. The Burwell stone, which he had not seen, was per- 

 haps the same bed. While the zonification of the Chalk and of other 

 deposits was very valuable when applied to particular sections, its 

 application to great inland stretches of country without continuous 

 sections, when the structure of the deposits could be seen only in 

 occasional pits, was by no means so safe. In every case, however, 

 it was very necessary to be exact with respect to the place of occur- 

 rence of fossils. 



Prof. Seeley remarked that points of great interest were raised in 

 both Mr. Price's and Mr. Jukes's papers. The former j)aper was an 

 attempt to give us the palaeontological divisions, from a French point 

 of view, side by sidewith stratigraphical divisions ; but he thought that 

 we ought to try to correlate the Folkestone section with other English 

 sections before crossing the Channel. Some beds, wanting here, are 

 no doubt present in other sections. With regard to Mr. Jukes -Browne's 

 paper, he thought that the introductory part called for no remarks, 

 as it treated of matters which every palaeontologist must have long 

 ago settled in his own mind. In the latter part Mr. Jukes-Browne 

 adduces fresh evidence in support of certain views which he brought 

 before the Society some time ago, and from which Prof. Seelejr, 

 from his own investigations of the ground, dissented at the time. 

 He thought that Mr. Jukes-Browne had completely mistaken the 

 sequence of the beds, and that what he regarded as a vertical suc- 

 cession in his Buckinghamshire section was really a horizontal 

 succession. The essential point of his paper was to prove that the 

 bed commonly called Upper Greensand, near Cambridge, lay un- 

 conformably upon the Gault; and he thought that the fauna of the 

 Gault went into that of the Upper Greensand; but his information 



