386 
S. V. Wood, jun and F. W. Harmer — 
tbe forest-bed of Kessinglancl and tbe Middle Glacial sands — beds 
whicb we say bave no existence tbere ; — but as Mr. Blake expresses 
an opinion tbat tliese forest-beds in situ are undoubtedly identical 
with similar beds beneatb tbe contorted drift in Corton cliff, and at 
Hasbro’, and Runton on tbe Cromer coast, we may refer to tbe paper 
of bis colleague, Mr. Reid, in wbicb tbe existence of tbe forest-bed 
in situ along that coast is called in question altogether. 
It will be interesting to see tbe various views of tbe gentlemen of 
tbe Geological Survey brought into tbe barmony requisite for tbe 
Meiuoir on East Anglian Geology wbicb Mr. Blake promises us. 
Witb respect to Mr. Reid’s paper we would observe : 
Firsthj. Tbat tbe Norwicb Crag and Cbillesford Clay, whicb many 
have found, and some still find, at Weybourne and elsewbere along 
tbe Cromer coast, but wbicb we bave always contended do not occur 
tbere unless concealed beneatb tbe beacb, bave no place in Mr. Reid’s 
section. So far, tbere fore, we agree witb bim. 
Secondly. Tbat as regards the fresli water bed (No. 3) sbown by bim 
to be irregularly interposed between marine sands (2 and 4), Sir 
Charles Lyell, in bis paper on Norfolk in tbe Phil. Mag. for 1840, 
sbowed that tbe fresbwater bed at Runton (wbicb we presume is 
part of Mr. Reid’s No. 3) was botli overlain and underlain by marine 
sands (tbe lower called Crag by Sir Charles). Tbe improbability of a 
purely fresbwater bed in situ thus occurring as a mere patch, or rather 
lump, between marine sands witbout tbere being any transition into 
or out of it, raised doubts of its correctness, so tbat one of us, in bis 
Remarks and Map,” circulated in 1865, suggested tbat nothing but 
a clean vertical section would be conclusive on the point. This 
section has since been made, and it appears tbat Sir Charles’s repre- 
sentation was correct. Tbe original difficulty tberefore recurs, and 
tbe question arises whetlier this fresbwater bed of peaty sandy clay, 
wbicb is only a tbick mass a few yards long, or any other similar 
patcbes, are beds in situ or not. Mr. Norton seems to think tbat 
much of tbe long-quoted ‘ forest-bed ’ of tbe coast is not in situ, and 
Mr. Reid expresses bimself very decidedly as of tbat opinion. If this 
should prove to be correct, it might, were it not for Mr. Reid’s State- 
ment that rootlets penetrate tbe sands, possibly explain the wbole 
matter by sbowing tbat some parts of tbese peats and freshwater 
and forest remains along tbe Cromer coast are portions of tbe pre- 
glacial land-surface, wbich were stripped off by ice wbicb formed 
over it, and were carried witb it into tbe estuary, in tbe sands of 
wbicb tbey became imbedded, in tbe same way tbat sbeets of chalk, 
hundreds of feet long, and several feet tbick, were stripped off the 
surface and carried into tbe Cromer Till just over tbese sands wben, 
somewbat later, tbe formation gave place in tbe same estuary (as we 
take it) to tbat of tbe Till. 1 We are sceptical as to wbether tbe in- 
1 We have seen sheets of sandy peat also imbedded in the Till itself near Cromer ; 
and in the sections of the Norfolk cliff whieli accompany the “ Remarks and Map ” 
circulated by one of us in 1865, the sands in question are about Sidestrand (where 
Mr. Reid rcpresents bis freshwater bed as intercalated between marine sands) 
described as charged with the debris of the forest bed with freshwater mollusca and 
peat (A'" of those sections). With the exception of the lump at Runton, neither of 
