part 1] GAULT AJSTD LOWER GREENSA:ND NEAR LEIGHTOIST. 51 



Among" the imclassified remnants may be mentioned some unnamed polyzoa, 

 teredo-borings, and small annelid (?) tubes, the latter sometimes riddling' the 

 nodules (B.) ; also some poorly preserved fragments of bone (? reptilian) (B.). 



1 have found no fossils whatever in the gritty clay and loam surrounding 

 the nodules. 



Fossils of the Ganlt. 



In the next part (§ IV) of this paper, reasons will be stated for 

 •concluding that, contrary to the supposition of Dr. Kitchin & 

 Mr. Pringle, the Lower Gault is present throughout the district 

 iuncler discussion, though of less thickness than at Folkestone. 

 The division between the Upper and the Lower Grault is marked 

 approximately, as at Folkestone, by a band of phosphatic nodules 

 which indicate a pause in deposition at the beginning of the Upper 

 Gault period. In the sections described in § II the Upper Grault 

 occurs certainty in place at Harris's pit (fig. 3, p. 7) and Heath 

 House pit ; possibly also at Grovebury brickyard. It may have 

 contributed to the top ' creep ' in neighbouring sections at lower 

 levels, but I have not seen any proof of this. 



Lower Gault. — The lower beds contain few identifiable fossils, 

 :such shells as have been entombed being almost always crushed 

 flat and, in the shallower sections, still further spoilt by weathering. 



' Belemnites minimus and vars.,' and ' Inoceramus concentricus and allied 

 forms,' are always the most conspicuous, and often the only fossils of the belt ; 

 .and they distinguish it throughout the district, as also at Long Crendon 

 f(p. 42) and Littleworth (p. 40). The ' Inoceramus ' shows much variation of 

 form, sometimes attributable to crushing and slight shearing, but sometimes 

 ■denoting original differences which may be of specific value ; one variety is 

 probably referable to Inoceramus anglicits Woods, and another, a wavy broad- 

 ribbed form, is likely to be that mentioned by Jukes-Browne & Hill in their 

 •description of the Gault of West Norfolk,^ as follows : — ' Of the other Inocerami 

 [at Muzzle], some seem certainly to be J. concentricus, and others resemble 

 .the larger and more compressed species which occurs frequently in the Lower 

 Gault elsewhere, and may be identified with that known as I. Crippsii when 

 found in the Red Chalk of Hunstanton.' I have obtained the same range of 

 forms in similar condition from the ' Belemnites minimus marls ' below the 

 Bed Chalk at Speeton, where they were associated with a crushed ammonite 

 •doubtfully referred to 'Ammonites interruptus.'^ 



It has been usual in stratigraphical work to ' lump ' these forms under 

 -^ Inoceramus concentricus ' as a term of contradistinction to ' I. sulcatus,' 

 "which can be separately recognized, however crushed, and has not, to my 

 knowledge, been found in these lower clays. 



In the recent deep section in Harris's pit (fig. 3, p. 7), the lower clays have 

 yielded a few other crushed fossils which come within the range of possible 

 identification. Dr. Kitchin & Mr. Pringle (K. P., pp. 13, 14) record 

 ' the presence of small impressions of the characteristically ornamented 

 Natitilus deslongchainpsianus d'OrhigTi J ' and ammonites 'poorly preserved, 

 in a compressed condition, often consisting of little more than brown rusty 



^ On the Lower Part of the Upper Cretaceous Series in West Suffolk & 

 Norfolk ' Q. J. G. S. vol. xliii (1887) p. 572. 



2 'On the Subdivisions of the Speeton Clay' Q. J. G. S. vol. slv (1889 

 p. 604 ; and ' On the Speeton Series in Yorkshire & Lincolnshire ' ibid. 

 vol. lii (1896), table facing p. 184. 



e2 



