54 MIDDLE ALBIAN STRATIGRAPHY 



(i) OKEFORD FITZPAINE (DORSET) 



The section at the Okeford Brick & Tile Works situated about | mile E. of the 

 village of Okeford Fitzpaine on the road to Shillingstone is no longer visible. It was 

 first described by Newton (1896 ; 198 : 1897 ; 66-68) from notes and material provided 

 by the Misses Forbes and Lowndes, then by Jukes-Browne (1900 ; 162), Reid 1903 ; 

 34-35), and Osborne White (1923 ; 48). Text-fig. 24 is taken from the account given 

 by Newton (1897, 67-8) with additions from Jukes-Browne. Spath (1925 ; 73 

 pi. V, fig. 6) figured one of Newton's specimens of 'Acanthoceras mammillatum ' as 

 Douvilleiceras inaequinodum (Quenstedt) so demonstrating the presence of the 

 inaequinodum Subzone to which Casey assigns the base of the Gault here (1961a ; 

 565) ; now included in the eodentatus Subzone. Spath also demonstrated the 

 presence of the benettianus Subzone (i.e. lyelli Subzone) by the occurrence of Hopiites 

 (H.) ' pseudodeluci ' Spath (type locality, 1925a ; 120) and forms close to H. (H.) 

 benettianus (J. de C. Sowerby) (1925a ; 117-8), together with Beudanticeras probably 

 laevigatum and 'Anahoplites of mimeticus type ' (1926a ; 147). 



The material described by Newton is in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). A re- 

 examination of the fossils and a careful reading of Newton's account (1897) has 

 provided the following important stratigraphical information. All the specimens 

 were undoubtedly indigenous and not semi-derived. The three fragments (BMNH., 

 C 6856-8) recorded by Newton as Acanthoceras mammillatum described by Spath as 

 Douvilleiceras inaequinodum could well belong to one partly phosphatised individual. 

 The nacreous shell was clearly preserved and the matrix adhering to it consists of the 

 bluish grey micaceous clayey sand with glauconite of Bed 3. The specimen could not, 

 therefore, have come from Bed 2. The specimens of Ostrea leymeriei (BMNH., 

 L 11579 figured specimen, L 11591) have traces of the same sediment adhering to 

 them as that of the specimen of D. inaequinodum. Moreover, internally there is the 

 same blackish phosphate. It would seem also that these come from Bed 3 and not 

 Bed 2 (cf. Newton 1897 ; 68). 



If this is the case then Bed 2, which Jukes-Browne (1900 ; 163) considered to be a 

 separate lithological unit and from which he records no fossils, together with Bed 1 

 may correspond to sediments at Dinton in the Vale of Wardour which have yielded a 

 kitchini Subzone fauna (Casey 1956 ; 231, 1961a ; 564). Jukes-Browne considered 

 that these two beds should possibly be grouped with the Lower Greensand. My 

 reading differs from that of Casey (1961a ; 565) who states that the Gault here rests 

 directly upon the Kimmeridge Clay. 



Two fragments of large specimens of Hopiites (H.) spp. (BMNH., C 6859-60) 

 identified by Newton as Hopiites benettianus (1897 ; 70), one of which he figured, are 

 preserved one with and the other without the nacreous shell in a ferruginous brown 

 (weathered) and grey micaceous clayey sandstone. Bearing in mind Newton's 

 remarks (1897 ; 67-8) this lithology indicates the upper part of Bed 4. The specimen 

 figured by Newton (1897 ; 70, pi. 2, fig. 1, BMNH., C 6860) was subsequently made 

 the holotype of Hopiites pseudodeluci by Spath (1925a ; 120-123) but due to its 

 crushed state and lack of inner whorls the true nature of it is impossible to determine. 

 Moreover, a specimen from Bed 5 at Badbury Wick shows a closely comparable outer 



