STBATA OF THE HAMPSHIRE BASIN. 177 



"was certainly some parallelism between the Middle Headon and the 

 Brockenhurst, though less than between the Col well-Bay beds and 

 the Brockenhurst. He had therefore thought the marine series might 

 be one whole group representing the Brockenhurst. He inquired 

 where Prof. Judd proposed to class the Upper-Bagshot sands. 

 He asked what number of fossils were common to the above beds. 

 He objected to the classification of the Tertiary strata into Miocene, 

 Oligocene, Eocene, &c., as laying down laws before the evidence for 

 them was in existence, and thought it was better, seeing that the fossils 

 changed with the localities, to give local names to the formations. 



Mr. Tawnet stated Mr. H. Keeping's objections to the identifica- 

 tion of the Colwell and Headon beds. He explained the greater 

 number of species in Colwell Bay by the imperfection of the collec- 

 tion from Headon Hill. 



Rev. J. F. Blake thought that the assemblage of fossils seen in 

 the field was more important than the regarding of rare fossils ; 

 adding that he thought the Colwell-Bay bed was distinct from the 

 Headon-Hill bed. 



Mr. Gakdker said that the marine conditions seem to recede to 

 the east in going upwards in the Hampshire Basin. Examination 

 of the plants would lead him to draw the base-line for the Oligocene 

 below the Bournemouth beds. He thought also the evidence of the 

 Mollusca was not entirely opposed to this. 



Mr. Whitakee, after speaking of the advantages of the large- 

 scale maps, criticised two of the sections on the wall as difficult 

 to compare. If the introduction of the term Oligocene would save 

 debates about whether a set of beds should be called Lower Miocene 

 or TJi)per Eocene, it would be a boon, as such debates were profitless. 



Prof. Judd said some of the objections now raised reminded him of 

 those brought against Eorbes's classification, when he proposed to 

 separate the Headon from the Bembridge series. He was, however, 

 convinced of the accuracy of his views. To Prof. Prestwich he said 

 the amount of the anticlinal had been exaggerated, the distance of 

 the Bembridge limestone from the marine band on Headon Hill 

 did not correspond with the distance at Clifi'-end. Just where the 

 Colwell-Bay beds should appear on Headon Hill the ground is wholly 

 masked. In his paper he had referred at length to Dr. Duncan's 

 and Yon Konen's work. He agreed that there was not much im- 

 portance in a name ; but the term Oligocene was established on the 

 continent, and it was very desirable to use it. He thought the 

 Upper Bagshot sands which contain CeritJiium concavurn should be 

 grouped with the Headon. Ho thought it was too late in the day 

 to get rid of the terms Eocene &c. He did not agree with the 

 identification which Mr. H. Keeping had made of the shells he 

 had collected for Mr. Edwards. In reply to Mr. Blake, he said 

 he had paid special attention to the representatives of the same 

 genus in the different beds. As regards Mr. Gardner's remarks, he 

 said the position of the land in Eocene and Oligocene times was 

 quite different ; and the line could not be drawn where he placed 

 it, as the limits of the groups were founded, not on terrestrial, but 

 on marine faunas. 



