58 



ME. H. W. MONCKTON ON^ THE 



To prove the occurrence of clay in the Lower Bagshot I need 

 only refer to the following sections ; in addition to which I may 

 remind geologists of the bed of pebbles underlain bj blackish clay, 

 so well shown in the railway-cutting at Virginia Water Station, 

 which is undoubtedly Lower Bagshot, and is not at all unlike the 

 Bearwood section. 



Aldershot Well at D lines. — Lvons, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xliii. (1887) 



p. 434. 

 Aldershot Town Brickyards. — Dr. Irving, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xli. 



(1885) p. 501. 



Ash. — Dr. Irving, Proc. Geol. Assoc, vol. ix. (1886) p. 415. 

 BrooJcwood Well.—Br. Irving, Geol. Mag. for 1886, p. 353. 

 Goldsworthy Hill. — Prof. Prestwich, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. iii. (1847) 



p. 382. 

 Walton Eailway-cutting. — Mr. Hudleston, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xlii. 



(1886) p. i57, fig. 5, bed 2. 



Stroude. — Monckton and Herries, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xlii. (1886) 

 p. 404. 



Now my contention is that all probability is in favour of the 

 Lower Bagshots north of Wellington College containing clay beds 

 as they do elsewhere, and that Dr. Irving is not justified in treating 

 every clay bed he finds as Middle Bagshot and thus producing the 

 alleged thinning-out of the Lower Bagshot Beds. I am inclined to 

 think that, if the type-section at Goldsworthy be strictly adhered 

 to, the Geological Survey map has given too great an extension to 

 the Middle Bagshots in the Wellington College district, and that 

 the clay bed worked for brickmaking at California, near Finch- 

 ampstead, should be included in the Lower Bagshot. See Monckton 

 and Herries, (iuart." Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xlii. (1886) p. 409, fig. 2. 

 In this instance Dr. Irving agrees with the mapping. 



In conclusion I should like to say that it is not easy to explain 

 in a short space the whole evidence relating to each of the nume- 

 rous localities dealt with in this paper, but that I am always happy 

 to go over the ground with those interested in the questions to 

 which I have referred. 



Discussion-. 



The Chaieman remarked that the absence of any antagonist 

 would preclude this paper from being fully discussed. As regards 

 the alleged overlap or overlaps he had concluded that they were 

 non-existent, and that if appearances seemed, in some cases, to 

 justify such an interpretation, these were more likely to be due to 

 lateral changes from clay to sand, or vice versa., in a series thus con- 

 stituted. He never put forward the view to which the Author had 

 alluded with any idea that it should replace the threefold division of 

 the Bagshots, but simply to draw attention to the undoubted fact 

 that there were two totally distinct series within the area — an upper 

 fossiliferous one which was wholly marine, and a lower unfossiliferous 

 one of probably freshwater origin. The curious way in which the 



