88 Mr! Kaye on Fossiliferous Beds in Southern India, 



miles from Verdachellum, the valley of the river is formed of an impure limestone, 

 which underlies the red sand and contains marine fossils. It contains no Baculites 

 or Hamites ; but there are several varieties of Ammonite, differing from those 

 found near Pondicherry ; and some of these must have attained a very great size. 

 There is also a Nautilus and a Spatangus, both distinct from those found at Pon- 

 dicherry. 



I will offer only a few general remarks with regard to these deposits. The pre- 

 valence of the Baculite, Hamite, Ammonite and Belemnite in the Pondicherry 

 limestone seems clearly to indicate that this formation belongs to the secondary 

 aera, and especially points to the period of the cretaceous beds as the equivalent 

 among European formations. There is among these fossils a single vertebra of a 

 Saurian, which in Professor Owen's opinion most nearly resembles that of Mosa- 

 ■saurus. On the other hand, the prevalence of Volutes (of which there are eight 

 species) and the presence of Pyrula, Cypraea, Cerithium and Scalaria, would lead 

 to the conclusion that the period to which they belong is tertiary, and at any rate 

 appear to indicate an unusual mixture of forms. The notion of there being this 

 mixture receives support from a review of the fossils of the other deposits I have 

 mentioned ; for it will be observed that such shells from the Trichinopoly limestone 

 as can be identified with known species, are all tertiary shells of the Paris and 

 London basins, and that most of the others very nearly resemble tertiary shells. 

 One of the Volutes has been decided by Mr. Sowerby to be common to Trichino- 

 poly and Pondicherry : and I obtained, with the tertiary shells from Trichinopoly, a 

 large cast of the chamber of an Ammonite ; and, lastly, several of the shells which 

 at Trichinopoly are associated with tertiary forms, are again found at Verdachellum 

 associated with Ammonites and Pectens'*'. 



* See the conclusions arrived at by Professor E. Forbes as expressed in the annexed Report on these 

 shells, in which these identifications are disputed. 



