MIDDLE AND WESTERN ENGLAND AND SOUTH WALES. 361 
On looking over the foregoing list, it will be seen that nearly all the 
species hitherto determined from the White Lias are also St. Cassian 
species, the only exceptions being Montlivaltica rhetica, and the 
branching Thecosmilia from Long Sutton; also that a certain 
number of St. Cassian and White-Lias corals are common to those 
formations and to the Sutton Stone, but that none of them occur 
in the Brocastle coralline conglomerate. Furthermore, a most im- 
portant difference will be observed between the coral faunas of the 
Sutton Stone and Brocastle, not a single species being common to 
both. One species, however, which may be mentioned here, has 
been determined by me, though from rather doubtful specimens, to 
occur both at the latter place and in the conglomeratic beds over- 
lying the Sutton Stone. It is the Septastrea excavata, and its 
association in both these localities with Gryphwa arcuata may, 
perhaps, be taken as evidence in favour of the identity of the two 
deposits. To this I shall again refer in my concluding observations. 
Conclusion. 
Atp.359 of the present paper an opinion has been advanced that the 
White Lias of the midland and western counties of England, the so- 
called Guinea-bed of the western extremity of Warwickshire (Binton, 
Grafton, Wilmcote, and Bickmarsh), the conglomerate of the Stormy 
cement works, and the Sutton Stone of Sutton and West, are nearly 
or perhaps precisely of the same geological age. I wish now in 
conclusion to briefly confirm, but at the same time slightly to 
modify, that statement. 
The late Mr. Moore, in the paper from which T have already 
quoted, has expressed the opinion that a great thickness of conglo- 
merate exists below the Sutton Stone. ‘This he believed might have 
been accumulated contemporaneously with Liassic beds elsewhere. 
Furthermore he has made the remarkable statement that the 
shaft of the Langan lead-mine was sunk, first through beds of fine 
conglomerate, afterwards through the Sutton Stone, and then to a 
depth of 150 feet into an unstratified conglomerate, the bottom of 
which was not reached. This latter was supposed by Mr. Moore to 
be identical with beds observed by him under the Sutton Stone in 
the coast-section. Bearing this statement in mind, I made a most 
careful examination at Sutton; but could not perceive the least 
evidence of any deposit in the position indicated by him. What 
Mr. Moore observed at Cave number 2 (see p. 528 of his paper) was, 
I believe, nothing more than a part of the Sutton Stone itself, which, 
as Mr. Bristow observes, becomes hard and blue near that place. 
Taking into consideration the great difference of opinion respecting 
the age of the beds at the bottom of the cliff at Sutton and Southern- 
down, it will be well to base our conclusions on such stratigraphical 
evidence as may be derived from other localities, where the relation- 
ship of the conglomerate to the overlying and underlying beds can 
be more certainly traced. Such a locality is Stormy (and perhaps 
also Laleston), where we know that the Conglomerate lies directly 
between the Ostrea- and Estheria-beds, 
os 
— 
