320 Notices of Memoirs — H. Norton, on Norfolk Forest-bed. 
to their Polyzoal affinities. He remarks tkat tlie little bodies appear 
to come very near the recentgenus Scruparia, and its ally Ilippothoa. 
He adds, tbere is also a Cretaceous species of the genus /Etea 
{JE. anguinaria ) closely related to tliem. The present form need 
not be mistaken for eitber of the following Palfeozoic species : — 
Ilippothoa Voigtiana, King, Permian Foss. England, 1850, p. 31, 
t. 3, f. 13; Gienitz, Dyas, p. 120, t. 20, f. 24, 25 ; II. inflata, Hall, 
Nicholson, Ann. Nat. Hist., 1875, vol. xv. p. 123, t. 11, f. 1. As 
regards size, II. inflata, Hall, approaches nearest to our Carboniferous 
forms, but it is much larger. I propose to call this Ilippothoa ? 
Hincksii, and hope before long to give a more detailed description 
and figure. 
(Tb be continued.) 
NOTICES OIF ZMHELMIOIIE&S- 
I. — The Forest-bed of East Norfolk. By Henry Norton, F.G.S. 
Paper read before the Norwicli Geological Society, May Ist, 
1877 . — Norwich Mercury, May 5th. 
rjnHE author first refers to an excursion made to Muudesley and 
i Happisburgh by members of the Norwich Geological Society, 
an accoimt of which was published in the Eastern Daily Press, 
of February 15th. It was therein stated tliat “several stools of trees, 
with roots branching out, were seen, and proved on examination to 
have grown upon the bright blue cla’y of the soil of the forest.” 
Having been unable to attend the excursion, he went. two days later 
for the special purpose of ascertaining whether the stumps of trees 
observed were actually in situ as they grew. The few he was 
enabled to examine, although they had a false appearance of having 
grown where found, had their roots broken off, and could not have 
lived on the spots. They might very naturally have been drifted 
into such positions. 
The poor result of his visit induced him to examine what is the 
evidence on which the belief in the Forest-bed rests ; and the main 
object of the present paper was to point out how unsatisfactory were 
the Statements of those who have written upon the subjeet. He 
referred to the observations of R. C. Taylor, Rev. J. Layton, S. 
Woodward, J. Trimmer, and to those of Mr. Prestwich and Mr. 
John Gunn. Lyell had never seen the stools of trees in situ. The 
Statements made by these geologists were all vaguely general. No 
one had taken a particular stump, examined the condition of the 
roots, whether whole or broken, and told us their actual length and 
their position on the ground. It was known that remains of oak 
have been found, but we rvere never told that any particular stool 
was oak ; nor have we ever been told that any particular trunk was 
ever found lying near its own stool. It was, in fact, only too clear 
that our observers in general did not appreciate the value of precise 
facts as opposed to loose generalities. 
Mr. Norton was ready to admit the high, very high probability, 
of a forest in situ, but contended that there was yet no absolute 
proof of it. H.B.W. 
