35G 
PRESIDENT S ADDRESS. 
These discussions ought to interest Norfolk geologists for they 
can survey a considerable tract of Chalky Boulder Clay, and they 
should lose no opportunity of recording any facts that may bear on 
the question of the relation of the Mammoth to this great glacial 
accumulation. At present it may be said that none of the more 
striking discoveries of Mammoth have been made in deposits 
clearly beneath or clearly above any distinct mass of the Chalky 
Boulder Clay. 
Observations may profitably be made from time to time in the 
brickyards at Rockland, to which I have elsewhere drawn attention. 
The brickearth is older than the Chalky Boulder Clay, and 
according to Dr. J. E. Taylor a humerus of Elephant (species not 
named) was found in it.”' 
The famous Lacustrine deposit, opened up in the brickfield at 
Hoxne, has yielded a number of Arctic plants, and these have been 
worked out by Messrs. C. Reid and H. N. Ridley. In the course 
of their observations they noted that the small traces of Chalky 
Boulder Clay that had been seen to overlie the Hoxne deposits, 
“ proved to be merely the remains of some clay which had been 
brought to the pit at an early date— perhaps more than one hundred 
years ago — when the clay [brickearth] was first dug.” They add 
that “ Thus far what the writers have seen is strongly in favour of 
Professor Prestwich’s contention, that the lacustrine deposits rest 
in a hollow in the Boulder Clay.”t Remains of Elephant have 
been found in the Hoxne lacustrine deposit, but the species has 
not been determined. Further observations are wanted on this 
locality, for, as Mr. Reid informs me, the relative ages of the layers 
yielding the Plants, the Palaeolithic Implements, and the Bones, 
are not clearly established. 
A somewhat similar plant-bearing deposit, which likewise 
occupied a hollow in the Boulder Clay, was afterwards found at 
Saint Cross, near South Elmham, and this was described by 
Mr. Charles Candler. ^ While the assemblage of plants did not 
* ‘Geology of Norwich,’ pp. 110 — 112. 
t Geol. Mag. 1888, p. 442. 
J Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xlv. p. 504. 
