on the bagshot beds of the london basin. 417 



Discussion. 



The President said that a series of new correlations like those 

 suggested by Mr. Irving could hardly be accepted without a re- 

 examination such as that made by the Authors. 



Mr. Gardner said that any one familiar with the lithology could, 

 in most cases, make a distinction between the different members of 

 the Bagshot series ; the fauna constitutes a distinction between the 

 Upper and Middle beds, but as regards the Lower beds this fails us. 



Mr. Htjdleston observed that, so far as the Walton-Weybridge 

 section was concerned, it confirmed Mr. Irving's views as to the 

 absence of pebbles in the Lower Bagshots. There might be an 

 overlap on the north and south flanks of the basin, without such a 

 feature elsewhere. 



Mr. MoNCKTON, in reply, said that the Authors had been much 

 interested in Mr. Irving's theory, and had determined to test it for 

 themselves ; the results were unfavourable to his views. In reply 

 to Mr. Hudleston, he stated the existence of a pebble-bed in the 

 Lower Bagshot of 8t. Ann's Hill, but not continuous. Finally he 

 insisted tliat numerous sections, described or referred to in the 

 paper, at Bracknell and elsewhere were unfavourable to Mr. Irving's 

 views. 



