Yol. 52.] ON THE UPPER PORTION OF DUNDRY HILL. 673 



W. W. Stoddart 1 compared Dundry Hill to an island, pre- 

 sumably in the Jurassic sea ! He gives a diagrammatic section of 

 the strata of the whole hill in the forefront of his paper ; but it is 

 only with the beds referred to in the upper portion of this section 

 that we are concerned. This portion sets forth the construction of 

 Dundry Hill in the following terms : — 



Feet. Inches. 



Varhinsoni. f 1. Freestone 16 9 



About 23 feet. 1 2. Ragstone 6 



f3. Coral 1 



I 4. Echimcs 1 6 



Humphriesianus. J 5. Brachiopoda 4 8 



About 20 feet. ] 6. Concbifera 8 



Cephalopoda 3 



Ironsbot 2 



9. Midford Sands 2 



10. Upper Lias 4 



11. Middle Lias 1 



1: 



It will be noticed that Stoddart does give Middle Lias as being 

 present in this section ; but in the text the evidence quoted entirely 

 destroys the value of the assertion. 'A bluish marly limestone 

 about a foot in thickness and corresponding to the marktone .... 

 so full of the shells of Am. ihouarsensis, A. radians, and A. aalensis, 

 that the presence of the Middle Lias is fully justified ' (p. 284). 

 There is obviously a mistake here; these are ammonite.5 of what 

 Oppel called the 'Lias-oolith Grenzschichten' — the Cotteswold 

 Cephalopod-bed equivalent, — and they have never been found in 

 Middle Lias. 



It is easy to see that Stoddart's 7, 8, 9 correspond to Etheridge's 

 2, 1,« ; and therefore the remarks which we made concerning the 

 one apply equally to the other. We confess that the section above 

 the No. 7 bed puzzles us. It is true that there are brachiopoda and 

 conchifera in the strata superior to the bed which we suppose No. 7 to 

 denote — namely the hard Ammonitiferous Ironshot, — but certainly 

 not in such numbers as to attract the attention that seems to have 

 been given to them here ; whereas there are beds underlying ' the 

 Ironshot ' (see Table IV., facing p. 696) to which the description 

 applies very well : they are noticeable for the abundance of fossils 

 of the orders named. We can explain the sequence observed by 

 Stoddart only in the manner which we suggested with regard to 

 Mr. Etheridge's paper, or else on the supposition that Stoddart 

 accidentally reversed a part of his section. 



In 1878 Mr. J. F. Walker 2 compared the brachiopoda of Dundry 

 with those of Dorset and the Cheltenham district, pointing out that 

 certain species were common to Dundry and Dorset, and were not 

 found in the Cheltenham district, which has its own peculiar forms. 

 He suggested that a Palaeozoic barrier might have separated the 

 Dorset and Cheltenham areas. 



1 ' Geology of tbe Bristol Coalfield. Part 5. Jurassic Strata.' Proc. Bristol 

 Nat. Soc. n. ser. vol. ii. pt. iii. (1879) p. 279. 



Tcrebratida Morieri in England,' Geol. Mag. 1878, p. 552. 



