672 MESSES. S. S. BTJCKM.AX AND E. WILSON [Nov. 1 896, 



side quarry. The mistake, so far as the latter is concerned, has arisen 

 as the natural consequence of considering the before-mentioned marls 

 with Terebratula Eudesi as 'the Upper Lias Sands.' 



' No. 2. — The Ammonite-bed.' This, as we said above, is 

 evidently what we call ' the Ironshot Oolite.' 



' No. 3.' The ammonites quoted as coming from Nos. 3 and 4 

 (p. 24) puzzle us entirely, because they are species which we have 

 found beneath and do not find above ' the Ammonite-bed' (Iron- 

 shot Oolite). 



' No. 5. — The JRagstones of Dundry forming the zone of Ammo- 

 nites Parkinsoni.' There is evidently some confusion here. The 

 description and the fossils given answer partly to what we call 

 * the Coralline beds,' and partly to our ' Terebratula Eudesi-be&s.' 

 The locality where the beds are said to occur — to the west of the 

 church — shows only Terebratula Eudesi-be&s, and no Coralline beds : 

 the locality referred to is obviously Clements' Yard (see p. 679). 

 Further, ammonites are quoted in No. 5 ; but practically we have 

 found none in ' the Coralline beds,' nor in the strata above ' the 

 Ironshot Oolite.' The beds (No. 5) are placed by Mr. Etheridge 

 below the Freestone and above the Ironshot; but the Coralline 

 beds come above the Freestone, and the Terebratula Eudesi-he&s 

 are below the Ironshot. 



'Nos. 6 & 7.— The Building-stone.' This is said to be the 

 highest set of beds at Dundry ; but we find them to be covered 

 by several feet of Coralline Limestone. 



"We have thus criticized this paper because Wright, in intro- 

 ducing it, said that ' the true relations of its [Dundry Hill] beds of 

 Inferior Oolite with those of other regions have not, until now, 

 been accurately described;' and also because it is actually the only 

 detailed communication on the geology of Dundry Hill which has 

 appeared in the pages of the Quarterly Journal. Unfortunately, by 

 our researches we are unable to confirm the Dundry sequence of 

 strata in the manner presented to us by the author, but we can 

 understand the order given by him on a supposition of some con- 

 fusion of beds at different levels in various isolated exposures 

 which may not have presented an overlapping series. 



In 1875 E. B. Tawney 1 noticed Dundry and Mr. Etheridge's 

 communication thereon, observing that the succession of beds as 

 given by the author cited is open to some doubt, and that ' above 

 these [the Bagstones] Mr. Etheridge places the Building-stones, 

 while others have placed them below the Kagstones.' On his own 

 part Tawney remarks that '•A. Murchisonce, Sowerbyi, and Hum- 

 lihriesianus seem to occur together.' 



James Buckman 2 considered that the beds at Dundry and at Brad- 

 ford [Abbas] were on the same horizon, and that they had not the 

 slightest connexion with the Cephalopod-bed of Gloucestershire, 

 thus correcting some earlier authors. 



1 ' Bristol and its Environs.' Published under sanction of local Executive 

 Committee of Brit. Assoc. 1875. — ' Inferior Oolite,' by E. B. Tawney, p. 378. 



Quart. Journ. Greol. Soc. vol. xxxiii. (1877) p. 3. 



