THE CROSS FELL INLIER. 529 



underlying and adjoining older beds. He thought it would be well 

 if the Authors could supply further evidence bearing on the direction 

 of the earth-movements which had produced such results, and on 

 the physical changes generally which had affected the area under 

 discussion. 



Mr. RuTLEY asked what was the breadth of the dykes represented 

 in the section : and whether, in any case, they were found to follow 

 the directions of faults. He approved of the a])plieation of the 

 term " lamprophyre " to these rocks. 



Mr. HuDLESTON said that the district was one of the most inter- 

 esting from a geological point of view in England, and he expressed 

 regret that so few persons who had been over the ground were at 

 the meeting. It would have been an advantage to have heard 

 Mr. Goodchild's views. Nevertheless, they had seen that it was 

 possible to criticize effectually without special local knowledge. An 

 intimate acquaintance with this Inlier would help to explain some 

 of the difficulties experienced in the geology of the Lake District ; 

 the distribution of the Eycott-Hill type of rock was a case in point. 

 There could be no better proof of the importance of the argument 

 from pala3ontology than the correlation of the Dufton Shales with 

 the Keisley Limestone, so unlike in lithological character. Perhaps 

 the explanation of that difference as having been mainly due to sub- 

 sequent deformation was open to some doubt. There could be no 

 question as to the value and general interest of the paper. 



The Chairman congratulated the Authors on the reception of their 

 paper by the meeting, and pointed out that contributions of this 

 class, in which stratigraphical details were illustrated by careful 

 palaeontological research, had become comparatively less common in 

 the Society's Journal than they formerly were, although the value 

 of such papers, as was well illustrated by the present example, had 

 by no means diminished. 



Mr. Mark, in reply, explained that the term " Bala " was used 

 by them as synonymous with Caradoc, so that their Lower Bala of 

 this district was not Llandeilo. He remarked that the apparent 

 conformity between the Skiddaw Slates and the E-hyolitic Group 

 was illusory, and that the newer beds abutted discordantly against 

 the fault. He justified the absence of cross-faults in the Skiddaw 

 Slates on the ground that the faults were only drawn where actually 

 observed, but pointed out that Sedgwick had long ago shown how it 

 was perfectly possible to get faults which did not affect older rocks 

 in immediate vicinity to the newer rocks which were profoundly 

 affected. He stated that Mr. Harker had in his appendix entered 

 into some detail concerning the lamprophyres. 



He observed that the Authors had not given any definite explana- 

 tion of the difference between Keisley Limestone and Dufton Shales, 

 as evidence for such was not to be gained from this isolated region. 

 All that they maintained was that the Keisley Limestone and Dufton 

 Shales were referable to the same subdivision, which was older than 

 the Staurocephal us-JAmestone and newer than the Corona-heds. 



