1870. | LANKESTER—NEWER TERTIARIES OF SUFFOLK. 513 
Prats XXXTYV. 
Figs. 1-4. New Mastodon from the Suffolk Bone-bed. 
Fig. 1. Enamel crown of a left upper penultimate molar of a Trilophodont 
Mastodon, with simple valleys between the primary ridges, from the 
Suffolk Bone-bed. Diestien matrix fills up the valleys. In the col- 
lection of Mr. Baker, of Woodbridge. 
Fig. 2. Side view of the same tooth. 
Fig. 3. Fragment consisting of two terminal ridges of a similar tooth, probably 
a lower molar, from the Suffolk Bone-bed. In the collection of the 
Rev. H. Canham, of Waldringfield. 
Fig. 4. Fragment of another tooth, exhibiting a slightly oblique secondary 
transverse ridge or fold of enamel (¢7) crossing the valley, and hence 
similar to Mastodon (Trilophodon) tapiroides. In the collection of the 
Rev. H. Canham. 
Fig. 5. Conus, sp. A gutta-percha pressing from a concave cast in one of the 
Suffolk Box-stones. The nodule is in the collection of the Rev. H. 
Canham ; the pressing is in the Society’s cabinet. 
Fig. 6. Voluta auris-leporis. A natural cast in Diestien sandstone from the 
Suffolk Bone-bed. In the collection of the Rev. H. Canham. 
Fig. 7. A large and flat Venus, from a gutta-percha pressing taken from a con- 
caye cast, in a Suffolk Box-stene. The nodule is in the Rev. H. Can- 
ham’s collection; the pressing is placed in the Society’s cabinet. 
Fig. 8. Natural cast of the interior of a small species of Cassidaria, occurring in 
a Suffolk Box-stone. In Mr. Canham’s collection. 
Fig. 9. Gutta-percha pressing from the concave cast of a similar shell, showing 
the form of the apex of the shell and its surface-markings. In a Box- 
stone belonging to the Rev. H. Canham. 
Fig. 10. Zsocardia lunulata. An abundant form in the Belgian Black Crag, not 
uncommon in the Suffolk Box-stones. Gutta-percha pressing from a 
nodule belonging to the Rev. H. Canham. 
Discussion. 
Mr. Boyp Dawxrns had arrived at a different conclusion from the 
author, though the discoveries recorded in works on paleontology 
showed a marked difference between the Suffolk and Norfolk Crag- 
faunas, such as was not borne out by an examination of collections. 
He considered that the forms of Ruminants showed a contempo- 
raneity between them. The supposed Cervus dicranoceros of Owen 
was, in fact, another form of deer, which was common to the base 
of both the Suffolk and Norfolk crags. The Hlephas meridionalis 
and Mastodon arvernensis had been found side by side in Norfolk, at 
Montpellier, and in the Val d’Arno, and were therefore probably 
contemporary. The different lithological character in the two 
counties was probably due to the different nature of the underlying 
beds—London Clay and Chalk. 
Sir Cuartes Lyett was much struck with the perfect identity 
between the box-stones of Suffolk and some exceptional Antwerp 
beds which he had seen at Berchem, and considered that this was 
sufficient to prove they belonged to the same deposit. He thought 
that the area between Belgium and England might have contained 
a large number of terrestrial beds which eventually left a certain 
number of their contents to be mingled together in the lower beds 
of the later marine deposits. 
The Rey. J. Gunn produced from the Red Crag at Waldringfield 
