52 MB. G. TV. LAAIPLr&H Oy THE jr>'CIIO>"' OF _Yol. IxsTviii, 



films on the bedding-pl anes ; neTertheless, many shovr plainlr the Tnain 

 featnres. The conunonest form is closely comparable with well-known 

 specimens/ . . . ^from other places mentioned" • Tariously named in mnsenm 

 collections as Hoplites auritiis iJ. Sowerbv), H. catillvs (J. de C. Sowerby) or 

 H. auritus Tar. catillus' (see further comments, p. 78). They also mentioii 

 the occurrence of Xucxtla pectinata J. Sowerby. Pecten (SyncyclonemaJ 

 orbicularis J. Sowerby. and ' Scalaria ' dupiniana dOrbigB^y. I hare myself 

 obtained si)ecimens of these, except the last-named and the Sauxilus. The 

 ammonites are n^nally crushed in the horizontal plane ^; but I found one 

 specimen which has been crushed and spread edgewise : it appears to hare 

 been a • Hoplites ' form, with strong protuberances at the outer end of the ribs» 

 I hare also collected from the lower clays (2 to 4 feet aboxe the base) the 

 remains of a small fish ; decomposed pyritous teredo-bored wood with traces 

 of adherent • Anomia (r) ' and small oyster-like shells : ' Xatica (r)' ; and the 

 markings of many broken bits of shell. 



From the higher i)art of the Lower Gault nnder Shenley Hill I hare not 

 myself obtained any specimens in place, as this portion is so qnickly obscnred 

 by slips that it is rarely accessible. It has been examined howexer (wholly 

 or in part r) by Dr. Eitchin & Mr. Pringle. whose record relating to the 

 fossils has already been quoted (fig. 3, description, pp. 7— S). Somewhere in 

 this part, probably not far below the Upper Glanlt nodule-bed, the clays must 

 contain some ammonites j)artly infilled with concretionary matter and thus 

 preserved in an uncrushed condition, as I hare collected several good frag^ 

 ments in this state, mostly of the " Ammonites auritus ' and • A. splendens ' 

 types, from spoil removed from the middle of the slips : and I have a specimen 

 of the same kind (either ' auritus ' or ' lautus ') from Chance's pit, obtained in 

 1904 from a quarryman. and said to have been found in place. 



Fragments of the " splendens " ammonite in the same condition may still be 

 picked up on the clay-slopes of the old Heath House pit (p. 29). 



The other sections in the lower clays around Shenley TTi JI have yielded little 

 beyond ' Belemnites minimus ' and • Inoceramus concentricus ' : and it is note- 

 worthy that the Littleworth brick-pit, from which Jukes-Browne records 

 Lower Gault ammonites (p. 39), has yielded to me nothing more than the 

 same ' Belemnites ' and ' Inoceramus ' in the present weathered exposure. 



From the lower clays of the Grovebury brickyard I have collected at 

 various times the following fossils among others, mostly as fragments, but 

 hard and uncrushed, the majority being from the band of small brown nodules 

 described in the section (p. 34) : — '' Ammonites interraptus ' (1 specimen) j 

 ' A- auritus ' (3 si)eciniens) ; ' A. splendens ' (5 specimens) ; ' Hamites ' 

 (3 specimens) ; " Belemnites minimus ' ; ' Dentalium decussatum ' (1 specimen) ; 

 ' Xatica " : • Mucula " : etc. : and from larger nodules probably occurring in 

 the upper part of the section — ' Ammonites rostratus ' (1 specimen, good) j 

 'A. varicosus ' (2 specimens); and 'Inoceramus sulcatus or subsulcatus.' 



T7pper Grault. — Esirpt tlie few specimens from Grroveburv 

 brickyard just mentioned, and a few representing the same species 

 and in the same condition found on the Aveathered slopes of 

 Heath House pit. my collection of the Upper. Gault forms has 

 been obtained entirely from the fossiliferous band with phosphatie 

 nodules near the top of Haniss pit (fig. 3, p. 7). The following 



^ In the first sketch of the section in my notebook, dated June 2nd, 1902, 

 made just after the discovery of the fossiliferous lim estone, my description of 

 the Grault reads : — " Gault clay, Inoceramus concentricus. Ammonites inter- 

 ruptus, &c., thickness : 5 to 8 feet.' For some reason which I cannot now 

 recalL but probably because I had not carried away specimens for reference, 

 and was (quite rightly) doubtful of my field-determination, I omitted 

 reference to the ammonite in the paper published in 1903. The forms that I 

 sa^v mav have been like those no^v described. 



