102 



PROF, J. PEESTWiCH ON THE EELATION OE THE 



Crag Beds. In the following year Mr. Harmer questioned that 

 view, and contended that the rootlet-bed does not represent the 

 Chillesford Clay, but that it forms part of a freshwater deposit 

 occupying a basin excavated in the Chillesford Clay, and is thus 

 newer than the latter *. In 1880, Mr. J. H. Blake confirmed the 

 opinion that these beds represent the Forest Bed of Happisburgh, 

 and determined the exact position of the Mammalian remains as 



Fig. 5. — Section at the base of the Cliff north of Palcefield. 







^^^^4 



c... 



d... 



g... 



feet. 



a. Chalky Boulder-clay (base of) — 



h. White sands with patches of gravel and fragments of shells (one 



Tellina hatthica entire), irregularly bedded and ochreous at base 15 to 18 

 e. Laminated black carbonaceous clay, with branches of wood and a 



few small angular fragments of flint 4 



d. Band of freshwater shells ( C/"wio, (7?/c/«s, &c.) ^ 



e. Compact greenish clay with fragments of flint, traversed by rootlets 



in situ 6+ 



" sometimes forming a distinct and separate bed, one stage more 

 recent than the Chillesford Clay, and sometimes apparently passing 

 down into the Chillesford Clay and forming as it were the uppermost 

 portion of the same," and, " with possibly a few trifling exceptions, 

 all the Mammalian remains are to be found buried beneath the 

 more or less denuded surface of the Eootlet Bed and the Chillesford 

 Clay"t. 



The only doubt to be felt is whether in this pebbly clay {e) we 

 have the Chillesford Clay modified by its approach to land and the 

 Forest estuary, or whether it belongs altogether to the Forest Series. 

 It appears from the sections of the north end of Easton Bavant 

 cliff and at Covehithe (fig. 2) that the laminated beds c and cl 

 overlie a carbonaceous seam 6, and these may represent the Forest 

 Beds, while the dark clay (/) appears to pass southwards without 



* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxxiii. p. 134. 

 t Proc. Norwich Geol. Soc. vol. i. pp. 137-160. 



