Vol. 59.] IN THE BED SANDSTONE-ROCKS OF PEEL. 309 



Orthis sp. Part of a larger shell, different from the above, but too imperfect 

 for identification. 



Rafinesquina deltoidea, Dalman. Two or three small shells, with scarcely a 

 trace of concentric wrinkling : this is mentioned by M'Coy l as charac- 

 teristic of some of the Coniston specimens of this form. 



Plectambonites quinquecostata, M'Coy. Several well-preserved shells. 



Atrypa expansa, Lindstrom. Several of various sizes, from a quarter to three- 

 quarters of an inch in diameter. 



Hyatella Portlochiana, Davidson. Two shells, which agreed with examples of 

 this species in the Woodwarclian Museum. 



Dayia pentagonalis, Reed. One very small valve, which appeared to agree 

 with young examples of this species in the Woodwardian Museum ; it is 

 not, however, distinct enough to base any conclusion upon it. 



MOLLUSCA. 



Platyceras verisimile, Reed. Four well-preserved specimens of this gasteropod 

 have been met with. It was described by Mr. Cowper Reed 2 from the 

 Keisley Limestone, and is not known to occur in any other beds. 



ECHINODERMATA. 



The limestone of many of the pebbles is crowded with crinoid-stems, which 

 present in cross-section considerable variety in form and size, and probably 

 belong to several different species. 



Actinozoa. 



Stenopora fibrosa, Groldfuss [? Monticuliporoid]. Some sections which Prof. 

 Boyd Dawkins had had prepared showed good specimens of this coral. 



The foregoing list shows that the group of fossils yielded by the 

 pebbles, though it may represent only very incompletely the fauna 

 of the parent limestone, is yet sufficient to prove that this lime- 

 stone was of the age of the Bala Beds ; while its identity with the 

 Keisley Limestone in particular is strongly indicated by the presence 

 of several forms believed to be peculiar to that division, and is 

 further supported by the evidence of the remainder of the fossils, 

 and by the lithological characters of the rock. 



In view of the isolated position of the Keisley Limestone in 

 Westmoreland, the discovery in a new locality of a rock identical 

 with it, even though it be only in a derived form, is of considerable 

 interest. It is not, of course, possible to say exactly what this 

 identity amounts to ; whether, in fact, the pebbles in the Peel 

 conglomerate are fragments of the actual limestone-mass of Keisley, 

 or have been derived from corresponding beds in the more im- 

 mediate neighbourhood of their present resting-place. It seems 

 hardly likely, however, that they should have originated from so 

 distant a locality as the Cross-Fell district, especially as Prof. Boyd 

 Dawkins 3 has proved a local source for the other varieties of pebbles 

 found with them in the conglomerate; and on this view, their 



1 Quoted by Davidson, ' Monogr. Brit. Foss. Brach.' vol. iii (1871) p. 293 

 (Palseont. Soc. vol. xxiv). 



2 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. liii (1897) p. 79 & pi. vi, fig. 7. 



3 Ibid. vol. lviii (1902) p. 641. 



7,2 



