( 63 ) 
VIII. 
FURTHER NOTE ON THE PALAEOLITHIC DEPOSITS 
AT HITCHIN. 
Ey Clement Reid, F.R.S., F.L.S., P.G.S. 
Communicated by John Hopkinson, F.L.S. 
Head at Watford, 23rd April, 1901. 
Aeter the publication of my paper on the Palaeolithic Deposits 
at Hitchin,* the plant-hearing stratum beneath the Palaeolithic 
loam was again met with in a well a short distance from the 
brickyards. This well was fortunately observed by my friend 
Mr. William Hill, who procured some of the material thrown out 
and sent this to me with a note as to its position with regard to 
the exposures already described. The position of this well is 
250 yards west of the boring which I made in Mr. Ransom’s 
clay-pit, and Mr. Hill informs me that “ The total depth of the 
well is 63 feet, and the section was as follows:— 
Feet. 
Soil, etc...,. I 
Erickearth with a few small stones .I. 29 
Yellowish calcareous loam with shells. 3-31- 
passing rather abruptly to 
Very dark grey (almost black when wet) fine clayey silt 
with shells . 8-9 
passing rapidly to 
Fine yellowish-grey loamy sand . 22 (about).” 
“The section of the ‘Lake Red’ in the well,” Mr. Hill adds, 
“ showed a strong dip at the base.” 
The section agrees so closely with those already recorded that 
no remark need be made upon it, except that the uppermost 30 feet 
of strata evidently represent the Palaeolithic loams seen in the 
brickyards. There is no sufficient evidence to prove whether the 
22 feet of loamy sand should be assigned to the base of the lacustrine 
deposits or to the Glacial sand below. 
The material received from Mr. Hill was a carbonaceous loam 
with seeds, fresh-water shells, and fish-bones. Most of the species 
have already been recorded; but the occurrence of various others 
new to the deposit, including several plants previously unknown 
in the fossil state, makes it worth while to supplement the published 
lists, though the new discoveries do not in any way modify the 
conclusions already arrived at. Mrs. Reid, who undertook the 
troublesome work of breaking down and examining the samples, 
found the deposit less tractable than the large proportion of sand 
would lead one to expect. The material was not easy to split 
along the bedding-planes, and would not go to pieces in water 
* ‘ Proc. Royal Soc.,’ vol. lxi, p. 40 (1897), and ‘Trans. Herts Nat. Hist. 
Soc.,’ Vol. X, p. 14 (1898). 
