Vol. 56.] JEOLIAN SANDS OF KATHIAWAR. 589 



England any that were specially of aeolian origin, though as winds 

 might blow from land to sea some contributions from this source 

 were to be expected. The special features, however, that had led 

 to the idea of the seolian origin of the Indian deposits were not present 

 among our English Jurassics, none of which showed the consider- 

 able vertical thickness associated with limited horizontal extent, or 

 the presence of a mass of older rock at their margins. Even those 

 that showed false-bedding mostly contained, as at Sturminster 

 Newton, remains of larger organisms. 



The President and Mr. C. W. Andrews also spoke. 



Dr. Evans, in reply to Prof. Hull, said that the absence of large 

 marine fossils in the Junagarh Limestone could not be accounted for 

 by the subsequent alteration of the rock, as minute fragments of 

 lamellibranch- and gasteropod-shells could be seen scattered through 

 the rock, and these still preserved their characteristic structures. 

 He had never asserted that the whole of the Great Oolite beds were 

 of aeolian origin, but thought there were good grounds for believing 

 that portions were of that nature. 



In reply to Prof. Blake, he contended that if the calcareous 

 materials forming the Junagarh Limestone had been blown across 

 the country between the sea-coast and Junagarh, they must have 

 included materials from the Deccan Trap which was exposed in that 

 district. It was true that the false-bedded Jurassic Oolites had a 

 greater lateral extension than the Junagarh or Porbandar rocks, 

 and were not banked up on the windward side of older elevations ; 

 but in these respects they resembled the granular calcareous rocks 

 of Chorwar and other localities south of Kathiawar, which showed 

 the same microscopic structure as the Junagarh rocks. 



Q. J. G. S. No. 223. 2 r 



