﻿474 THE CAEBO^^IFEEOrs EOCKS AT LOUGHSHINNY. [Allg. I908. 



and finely crj-stalline in texture, often conspicuously crinoidal, and 

 containing an abundance of chert, especially towards the summit. 

 The conditions of deposition must have been very uniform, and 

 there were no traces of local upheaval, as in the Lane and Rush Con- 

 glomerates, At the base — that was, at sea-level — the fossils pointed 

 to late Semimila-&ge ; and consequently the overlying series must 

 represent some or all of the higher zones. Among the most 

 characteristic fossils he might mention Mhunopliyllum Muir- 

 headi, Carcinopliyllum, Clisiophyllid LitJiostrotion, CyatlwpliyTlum 

 Miirchisonce, giant Productids, and LitJiostrotion of Martini-, 

 junceum-, and irregidare-ty^es. No Zaphrentids had been recorded 

 until near the top of the succession, where they took the place of 

 the Clisiophyllids, the only brachiopod recorded being Productus 

 scahricidus. Oyathaxonia had not yet been found; consequently, 

 the exact horizon of these top beds must still remain undecided. 



The Peesident welcomed this fresh advance in our knowledge of 

 the zonal succession of the Carboniferous Limestone. The occurrence 

 of unexpected difficulties was usually a favourable symptom in the 

 progress of investigation ; and that, despite a general concordance 

 between the results of workers in other regions, there was no lack 

 of difficulties on this occasion was a matter for congratulation. No 

 doubt Dr. Yaughan would know how to meet them. He agreed 

 with Dr. Matley in regarding the nodular character of the lime- 

 stone as a phenomenon in which pressure had played no part. 



Dr. Yatjghan thanked the President, and all those who had 

 spoken, for their kind remarks, and for the lenient manner in which 

 they had accepted a change of view in regard to the possible horizon 

 of the Eush Conglomerate, demanded by the progress of faunal 

 research. In reply to Mr. Lamplugh, he did not think that the 

 determination of horizon was unduly influenced by knowledge of 

 the stratigraphy, seeing that palaeontology was only called iu where 

 stratigraphy was at fault. On account of the lateness of the hour, 

 he hoped that those who had raised interesting questions with 

 regard to the sequence in other areas would excuse an immediate 

 reply. 



Dr. Matley, in reply to an enquiry made by Dr. Hind, described 

 the nature and source of the pebbles in the Rush and Lane Con- 

 glomerates, and stated, in response to a question from the President, 

 that he had not observed any fragments of Lambay Porphyry. 



With regard to Mr. Lamplugh's remarks, the thickness of the 

 Rush Conglomerate-Group (500 feet) certainly was approximately 

 correct ; that of the Lane Conglomerate (200 feet) was arrived at 

 on the assumption that these beds were laid down horizontally, an 

 assumption that seemed to be justified by the fact that the dip of 

 the conglomerates corresponded fairly well with that of the under- 

 and overlying limestones. Both on stratigraphical and on palseon- 

 tological grounds it seemed quite impossible that the Holmpatrick 

 Limestone could be the same formation as the Lane Limestone 

 repeated by folding. In conclusion, he thanked the Fellows for 

 their kind reception of the paper. 



