part 2] GAULT AND LOWES GREENSAND FEAR LEiaHTOlS^. 81 



Discussion. 



Prof. H. L. Hawkins, speaking as an unrepentant palaeontolo- 

 gist, congratulated the Author on the lucid and almost convincing 

 expression of his views. From a careful study of the Echinoid 

 fauna of the ' limestone len tides,' the speaker had come to the 

 conclusion that a Cenomanian facies was definitely indicated ; and 

 this was the opinion of the majority of specialists who had 

 examined other groups of fossils from those deposits. His view was 

 that, had stratigraphers chanced to agree as to tlie Cenomanian 

 age of the masses in question, no further interest (of a horizonal 

 nature) would have attached to the fossils. As matters stood at 

 pi-esent, there seemed to be a clear issue between stratigraphy and 

 palieontology : to put back the time of appearance of a single species 

 would be justifiable, but to treat practically an entire fauna in 

 such a manner vitiated the principle of ' time-indication ' by the 

 evidence of fossils. Hence he hesitated to accept the Author's 

 conclusions, although, apart from the palseontological evidence, 

 they appeared reasonable and even obvious. 



Mr. J. PfiiNGLE regretted that no new facts had been brought 

 forward, and said that he would like to defer his criticism until the 

 paper was published. He would remark, however, that he thought 

 that the interpretation put forward by Dr. F. L. Kitchin and him- 

 self was the correct interpretation of the facts. 



The AuTHO-R, in reply, said that he had expected that the 

 critics of the previous work of himself and the late J. F. Walker 

 would have embraced the opportunity to support their strictures. 

 Since they had not done so, there was little scope for discussion. 



The palseontological argument for the supposed inversion was 

 out of perspective, through his critics having insisted on par- 

 ticular species and on their upward range, without having 

 mentioned also their downward range and the presence of other 

 species not favourable to their views. The echinoderms had been 

 dealt with, along with all the other fossils brought into the argu- 

 ment, in a portion of the paper which there had not been time 

 to read. 



No palaeontologist could suppose that his material, however 

 plentiful, represented the final limits of our knowledge ; and he 

 must occasionally have to meet facts novel to his experience. 

 Purely palaeontological methods of explaining the facts regarding 

 the fossils were available, and could be applied, without recourse 

 to an indefensible Grlacial overturn. 



Q. J. a. S. No. 310. 



