Vol.  49.] 
OF  THE  SHERBORNE  DISTRICT. 
513 
In.  this  section,  assuming  that  Bed  15  is  the  same  bed  which  has 
yielded  species  of  Hyperlioceras  at  Stroud — and  it  occupies  exactly 
the  same  position  with  regard  to  the  Upper  Freestone — the  cor¬ 
relation  of  Bed  14  with  Bed  9  of  Sandford  Lane  (Section  IX., 
p.  493)  is  rather  interesting.  In  the  Cotteswolds,  Terebratula  Buck- 
mani  is  thus  brought  to  be  contemporaneous  with  its  morphological 
equivalent  in  Dorset,  T.  cortonensis.  These  two  Terebratulce  are 
really  derivations  from  a  common  ancestor — the  punctata- stock ; 
and  it  may  reasonably  be  supposed  that  the  differences  between 
them  were  due  to  the  physical  isolation  of  the  Cotteswold  area.1 
There  is  a  curious  parallelism  and  a  certain  contemporaneity  in  the 
development  of  the  brachiopoda  of  the  Cotteswolds  and  Dorsetshire  ; 
but  the  Cotteswold  forms  are  mostly  quite  distinct  from  those  of 
Dorset,  and  are  peculiar  to  their  own  district. 
The  correspondence  of  Beds  6  to  10  2 3  of  Leckhampton  with  the 
lower  part  of  the  4 5  Fossil  Bed  ?  of  Sandford  Lane  in  regard  to  its 
Ammonites  is  certainly  demonstrated  by  the  species  found,  and 
therefore  Beds  11-13  of  Leckhampton  can  only  be  correlated  with 
Bed  8  of  Sandford  Lane.  Then,  up  to  Bed  2  of  Leckhampton,  are 
strata  which,  from  the  few  ill-preserved  Ammonites,  seem  to  point 
to  the  hemera  of  Witchellia  sp.  rather  than  to  that  of  Sauzei ;  but 
they  are  not  Ammonites  of  the  fcsilobata-type.  This  becomes 
interesting  in  connexion  with  the  suggestion  that  the  Sandford 
Lane  ‘Fossil  Bed  ’  was  deposited  during  more  than  two  hemerae 
(p.  495).  No  specimens  I  have  seen  from  the  Cotteswolds  give 
any  proof  of  any  strata  having  been  deposited  during  the  Ham- 
phriesiani  3  or  niortensis  hemene.  Such  proof  may  be  found  in  the 
northern  part  of  the  Cotteswolds  ;  at  Leckhampton  it  is  certainly 
very  unlikely.  The  ‘  Bored  Bed  ’ — the  same  bed  to  which  I  first  drew 
attention  on  the  Banbury  and  Cheltenham  Eailway4 — indicates  a 
break  in  the  continuity  of  the  deposition. 
From  such  evidence  as  I  have  been  able  to  collect  at  present — 
rather  fragmentary  Ammonites — the  Upper  Trigonia-grit  of  the 
Cotteswolds  is  equivalent  to  the  ‘  Building-stone  ’  of  Sherborne; 
that  is  to  say,  it  was  deposited  during  the  Garantiance  hemera. 
The  Cly peus-grit  which  overlies  the  Upper  Trigonia-grit- — in  the 
northern  Cotteswolds  it  exceeds  30  feet  in  thickness  iJ — is  rather  a 
misnomer,  for  the  Clypeus  occurs  only  in  the  upper  part  of  it  in  any 
noticeable  numbers.  Its  general  position  with  regard  to  the  Dorset 
1  ‘Relations  of  Dundry,  etc.’  Proc.  Cotteswold  Nat.  Field  Club,  vol.  ix. 
(1889)  p.  374. 
2  Species  of  the  genus  Witchellia  found  by  ray  father  many  years  ago,  labelled 
‘  Leckhampton,’  probably  came  from  these  beds ;  but  the  species  of  the 
Sonninia  fissilobata-grou])  are  sufficiently  unmistakable. 
3  No  reliance  can  be  placed  on  the  reported  occurrence  of  ‘  Ammonites  Hum- 
yhriesianus ,’  as  the  incorrect  use  of  this  name  is  notorious.  The  specimens  so- 
named  which  I  have  seen  from  the  Cotteswolds  have  no  resemblance  to  that 
fossil,  except  that  they  are  ‘coronate’  Ammonites,  nor  do  they  approach  any 
of  the  coronati  of  the  ffumphriesianam- beds  of  Dorset. 
4  Proc.  Cotteswold  Nat.  Field  Club,  vol.  ix.  pp.  Ill  et  seqq. 
5  Ibid.  p.  133. 
2  m2 
