130 ME. G. HICKLING ON FOOTPEINTS [May 1906, 



If Mr. Shipman's conclusions regarding the mode of formation of 

 the rocks which yielded our impressions are sound (see p. 125), we 

 may assume that the animal responsible for them was wandering on 

 a sandbank some distance from land. In view of the further facts 

 that it was probably web-footed, and that it certainly had an 

 awkward gait, it would seem reasonable to assume that it was 

 amphibious in habit. At least no further evidence on this point 

 could be expected from its footprints. 



The two brief visits which I have as yet been able to pay to the 

 Bock-Yalley Quarry have sufficed to show that footprints are really 

 abundant there — mostly in a very imperfect state of preservation, 

 but including some quite good impressions. In the course of less 

 than two hours' search altogether, I have been able to distinguish 

 several (at least four) distinct types of impression, which undoubtedly 

 represent different types of animals and cannot be attributed by any 

 chance to differences of imprint. 1 These other forms I hope to be 

 able to describe in a future communication, after further search of 

 the deposits has been possible. Meanwhile, I may note that some 

 of them bear a marked resemblance to those found by the late 

 Mr. G. Yarty Smith in the Permian sandstones of Penrith. 2 



The abundance and variety of the footprints in this quarry are of 

 considerable interest, in connection with the recent discovery of a 

 rich vertebrate fauna in the Permian of Russia. 3 The knowledge 

 of the existence of quite a varied assortment of reptiles at that 

 period — Anomodonts, Theriomorphs, Ehopalodonts, and probably 

 Deinosaurs — widens considerably the range of beasts which we 

 might expect to have inhabited our own shores. Formerly, the 

 only forms to which we could attribute such footprints as those 

 here described were the Labyrinthodont Stegocephalia, which group, 

 indeed, satisfied very well the general characters indicated by the 

 impressions. But, in view of Prof. Amalitzky's discoveries, we should 

 keep watch for indications of the higher forms. Should footprints 

 be discovered in the bone-bearing deposits of Russia, they might, 

 with some certainty, be referred to the animals which made them. 

 Then the prints in our own rocks might receive their interpretation. 

 Meanwhile, this communication may perhaps serve its most useful 

 purpose by drawing the attention of local geologists to the existence 

 of these sandbanks in the Magnesian Limestone — the one at Mans- 

 field is unlikely to be an isolated example — and to the fact of their 

 containing traces of perhaps the most interesting fauna with which 

 the vertebrate palaeontologist has to deal. 



1 TNot less than six distinct forms have now been found. — March 15th, 

 1906.] 



2 See Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xl (1884) p. 479. Still more interesting 

 istbe close resemblance, if not identity, of one of these forms with that described 

 bv Huxley from the Elgin Sandstones, and figured in Geol. Surv. Monograph iii, 

 pi. xiv (1877). 



3 See V. Amalitzkv, Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris, vol. exxxii (1901) 

 p. 591. 



