﻿Vol. 6l.~\ UPPER PORTION OF THE COAE-MEASUEES. 323 



with the Bassey Mine of Staffordshire, but none was attempted with 

 its immediate neighbour, the "Worsley Seam. As a fact, when the 

 question came up for consideration by the Royal Commission of 1905, 

 no help was forthcoming from palaeontologists . The Author's views 

 with respect to the general distribution of the plants and the 

 absence of hard-and-fast lines between the floras seemed to be 

 quite in accordance with facts, and the paper was an important 

 addition to the Author's previous contributions on the subject. 



Mr. J. T. Stobbs said that, as a worker among the Coal- 

 Measures, who collected plants, shells, and fishes, he felt compelled 

 to protest against the proposed general classification of the Coal- 

 Measures for the following reasons : — (1) It was based on partial 

 evidence, and neglected the valuable aids to be derived from the 

 fossil mollusca and fishes. Above the base of the Etruria Series, no 

 doubt that, together with the evidence of thin entomostracan 

 bands, the plant-evidence was of paramount importance ; but, below 

 that line, he stated without hesitation, after a daily experience 

 extending over several years, that the lamellibranchs were of 

 greatest use for the correlation of the Measures. (2) It was un- 

 necessary : all that the paper demonstrated was the accuracy and 

 soundness of Mr. "W'alcot Gibson's work in subdividing the Tipper 

 Measures of the Midland Coalfields : to add the term Radstockian 

 to that of Keele was quite unnecessary. (3) The upper and 

 lower limits of the ' StafFordian ' were very definite zoological 

 lines, and it was more than doubtful that they coincided with 

 so sweeping a change in the fossil flora. The Bassey- Mine Ironstone 

 was not a well-chosen base, as the plants from beds below were 

 similar to those in the overlying marls. Could the Author have dis- 

 tinguished the Keele Series from the Newcastle Series, simply by the 

 aid of the plant-evidence which he had examined from the Newstead 

 boring ? 



Mr. Walcot Gibson stated that the terminology suggested by the 

 Author was founded on strictly-palaaobotanical lines, and palseo- 

 botanists must decide as to its value. Eor local purposes of the 

 correlation of one seam of coal with another, the plant-evidence was 

 of less value than the shells ; but instances had recently occurred 

 when the plant-remains had proved of great service, in determining 

 whether a red sandstone reached in a boring belonged to an horizon 

 above the Productive Measures or to one wholly below them. 



