DEPOSIT AT BARRINGTON, NEAR CAMBRIDGE. 675 
thick for its size. Mr. Keeping picked it up out of the débris, but 
did not notice having dug it out. I have myself little doubt about 
its belonging to the deposit. It is of a blackish hue, polished, with 
white porcellanous mottling, and has specks of botryoidal limestone 
adhering to it; all which characters mark many of the flint frag- 
ments in the silt. 
The area excavated for the large collection was about 14 yards 
from north to south, by about 6 yards from east to west. 
If we compare the above list of Mammalia with that given by 
Mr. Jukes-Browne* for Barnwell, we find the following species 
common to Barrington and Barnwell :— 
Homo (by Mr. Griffith’s “ hache ”)t. Hippopotamus major. 
Ursus speleeus. Rhinoceros leptorhinus f. 
Felis spelzea. Elephas antiquus. 
Cervus megaceres. primigenius (?). 
Bos primigenius. 
At Barnwell, but absent from Barrington, Hquus fossilis. 
It is observable that a small undetermined Cervus is mentioned 
also at Barnwell. 
It will be seen, then, that the Mammalia belong to the same group 
at these two localities. We have, however, at Barrington neither of 
the distinctive shells Oyrena fluminalis and Unio litoralis. The 
absence of either, or both, of these might be accidental; for it is 
only in places, even at Barnwell, that they are found; but I think 
the greater distance from the sea would be sufficient to account for 
the absence of the Cyrena. On the evidence I am disposed to cor- 
relate this deposit with that of Barnwell. 
Let us compare the conclusions which have been drawn from an 
examination of this deposit with those arrived at by Mr. A. J. Jukes- 
Browne respecting the age of the valley of the Rhee, which he 
thinks of a later age than any of the other tributary valleys of the 
Cam. If I understand him rightly, he considers the gravel at 
Barnwell, which is about seven miles below Barrington, to be the 
oldest ‘‘ terrace”-gravel in the district; for he does not apply that 
term to the still older “‘ Observatory” gravel. And he thinks it 
“possible” (p. 68) that the gravels about Foulmire and Foxton 
were deposited about the same time as those about Barnwell and 
Trumpington; but he says that, “‘on the whole, it seems likely 
that they belong to a somewhat later period.” 
As to the age of the Foxton and Foulmire gravels, if the two are 
to be regarded as contemporary (upon which point I have no opinion 
to offer), the argument from equality of level is rather in favour of 
the Foxton gravel being of the same age as that of Barrington. But 
the deposit at Barrington is, in my opinion, due to the ancient Rhee, 
and it contains a mammalian fauna similar to that of Barnwell, 
certainly an ancient one; and consequently the Rhee must still 
occupy a very ancient line of drainage. ‘The absence from it of 
* «The Post-tertiary Deposits of Cambridgeshire,’ 1876, p. 64. 
"y Geol. Mag. dec. ii. vol. v. p. 400; figured in Camb. Ant. Soc. vol. iv. p. 177, 
ae 
t The Barnwell specimens in the Museum properly belong to this species. 
