Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
It was stated in the general introduction to these Contributions (GEOL. MAG. June, 1880), that the divisions to be adopted would be regarded more as a matter of convenience than from any other point of view. It might, perhaps, seem more philosophical to have treated the whole of the Lower and Middle Oolites as one section of the subject quâ the Gasteropoda. By commencing at the base of the series the true sequence in time would have been followed, and the various “species” or their derivatives traced throughout. Had all the collections examined by me existed under one roof, this might have been practicable, as it would certainly have been desirable.
page 148 note 1 Proc. Geol. Assoc. vols. iii. and iv.; see also Strangways, Fox, Surrey Mem. Geol. of Scarborough; and Wright, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xvi. p. 1et seq.Google Scholar
page 148 note 2 Cf. “Yorkshire Oolites,” part i. Proc. Geol. Assoc. Vol. iii. p. 294.Google Scholar
page 149 note 1 For details of the sections at Hundale and White Nab see “Yorkshire Oolites,” part i. Proc. Geol. Assoc. vol. iii. p. 312et seq.Google Scholar
page 149 note 2 Parkinsoni, Am., Sow., is quoted by Phillips from the “Grey Oolite” of White G.Y., Nabthird edition, p. 267, but I have never seen it in any collection.Google Scholar
page 149 note 3 Judd, , “Geology of Rutland,” p. 10.Google Scholar
page 150 note 1 “Kellaways Rock” of the Survey Memoir, “Kelloways Rock” of Phillips, “Kelloway Rock” of Leckenby. I prefer the latter name as individualizing a formation of greater importance and wider range in time than the bed which so inadequately represents it in Wiltshire.
page 150 note 2 Proc. Geol. Soc. vol. iv. p. 364.Google ScholarCf. also Leckenby, , Q.J.G.S. 1858, p. 4et seq.Google Scholar