720 the upper portion of dundry hill. [Nov. 1896, 



below the Marlstone as this base ought to have been drawn if the 

 Marlstone were really the Ironshot Oolite or Sauzei-hed. 



7. That the officers of the Survey have mapped as Inferior 

 Oolite strata which are marked by them elsewhere as Lower Lias, 

 Middle Lias, Upper Lias, and Midford Sands. 



8. That the map of Dun dry Hill presented with this paper shows 

 the superficial extent of the Inferior Oolite to have thus been 

 greatly exaggerated on all previous maps. 



9. That the same sequence of ammonite-faunas obtains at Dundry 

 as iu the Cotteswolds and in Dorset, and hence is similar to that 

 found on the Continent. 



10. That the Sonninice hemera as a distinct period of time with 

 its own fauna preceding the Witchellice hemera, as pointed out in 

 the case of the Mid-Cotteswolds, is confirmed by the researches at 

 Dundry. 



11. Faunal lists of species found at Dundry are given, and their 

 approximate date of existence is assigned as carefully as circum- 

 stances permit. To one of these faunal lists certain palseontological 

 notes are appended, wherein is recorded a new name, Zeilleria 

 Oppeli, for one of the forms hitherto called Zeilleria (Terebratula) 

 anglica, attention being drawn to certain difficulties in the original 

 description and to the consequent application of the original name. 



12. A section of a railway-cutting at Wellow is given for com- 

 parison with certain Dundry sections, and to illustrate the results 

 of pre-Bathonian denudation. 



Discussion. 



Mr. H. B. Woodward objected to the application of the Great 

 Oolite term ' Bathonian ' to the upper beds of the Inferior Oolite. 

 He pointed out that the Dundry outlier had not been revised since 

 1845, when the Geological Survey map of the area was published. 

 The differences between the map of De la Beche, Ramsay, and 

 others, and that produced by the Authors were not, after all, very 

 great. 



Mr. E. T. Newton remarked upon the lists of fossils mentioned in 

 the paper, which included species characteristic of the Middle and 

 Upper Lias as well as of the Inferior Oolite. It was evident that the 

 Authors had detected beds of Middle and Upper Lias age where 

 they had not before been recognized. 



Mr. Marr regretted that the Authors were absent, as the summary 

 which he had read appeared much more controversial than the 

 actual paper was. He fully believed in the general accuracy of the 

 detailed work of the Authors, which no doubt was counter to some 

 of the work of earlier observers. 



