^{page 290 note 1} Kendall, J. D., Iron Ores of Great Britain and Ireland, 1893, p. 74.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 1} “Summary of Progress for 1921” (Mem. Geol. Surv.), 1922, pp. 62, 63.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 2} Including Sedgwick, Geol. Trans., Ser.II, vol. iv, p. 395Google Scholar; Binney, Mem. Lit. and Phil. Soc. Manch., vol. xii, p. 51;Google Scholar Murchison, and Harkness, , “On the Permian Rocks of the North-West of England and their extension into Scotland”: Q.J.G.S., vol. xx, 1864, pp. 151, 155.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 1} “ Summary of Progress for 1921 ”: op. cit., p. 65.

^{page 292 note 2} The Limestone was traced as far inland as this point by Murchison and Harkness: op. cit., p. 155.

^{page 294 note 1} Permission to publish details has been granted by Mr. J. Graham, of the Millom and Askham Co., Ltd.

^{page 294 note 2} “ The Haematite Iron Ores of West Cumberland, Lancashire, etc.”: op. cit., pp. 17, 18.

^{page 294 note 3} The records read:—

B.H. 1. Limestone breccia.

B.H. 3. Brown and grey limestone, loughy, 6 ft.

B.H. 5. Grey and brown limestone.

B.H. 6. Very coarse limestone, with nodules, 8 ft.; coarse yellow limestone, 7 ft. 8 in.; coarse variegated limestone, 13 ft. 2 in.

B.H. 7. Brown decomposed limestone [angular lumps of limestone as breccia in a yellow magnesian matrix], 30 ft. 2 in.

B.H. 8. Dark-grey honeycombed limestone, lift. 9 in.; grey honeycombed limestone, 35 ft. 7 in.

^{page 294 note 4} SirMurchison, Roderick and Robert, Harkness, “ On the Permian Rocks of the North-West of England and their extension into Scotland”: op. cit., pp. 154, 162.Google Scholar

^{page 296 note 1} “ Haematites of West Cumberland, etc.”: op. cit., p. 23.

^{page 296 note 2} “ Geology of the Southern Part of the Furness District” (Mem. Geol Surv.), 1873, p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 296 note 3} Kendall, J. D., Iron Ores of Great Britain and Ireland, pp. 71, 72.Google Scholar

^{page 296 note 4} Smith, B., “ On Borings for Coal near Maryport, Cumberland ”: “ Summary of Progress for 1920 ” (Mem. Geol. Surv.), 1921, Appendix III, pp. 86, 89. “On a Boring for Coal at Bray ton Domain Colliery, Cumberland ” “ Summary of Progress for 1919,” 1920, Appendix I, p. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 1} “ Haematites of West Cumberland, Lancashire, and the Lake District ”: op. cit., pp. 24, 25.

^{page 300 note 1} Eastwood, T. in “ Summary of Progress for 1921 ” (Mem. Geol. Surv.), 1922, p. 64.Google Scholar

^{payge 301 note 1} Published by permission of the Egremont Mining Co.

^{page 302 note 1} See footnotes, pp. 306 and 307. Professor Gregory suggests that the St. Bees Sandstone material of Seascale was derived from South-Western Scotland.

^{page 303 note 1} Ellsworth, Huntingdon, “The Depression of Turfan in Central Asia”: Geogr. Journ., 1907, pp. 254–73. Professor Huntington informs me that “ the ‘ pebbles ’ in these piedmont slopes vary from rough angular boulders a foot or two in diameter, close to the border of the mountains, to small well rounded pebbles well out from the mountains, and finally sands and clays… The gravels are stratified with the rough stratification which one normally finds in piedmont deposits of dry regions. False- or current bedding is quite frequent, especially in the coarser gravels”.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 2} Bonney, , quoting Blanford, “ On the Relations of Certain Breccias to the Physical Geography of their Age ”: Q.J.G.S., vol. lviii, 1902, p. 199.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 3} Geology and Palaeontology of North-West Peru, Macmillan & Co., London, 1922, pp. 244–6.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 1} “ Geology and Water Resources of Sulphur Spring Valley, Arizona: ” Water Supply Paper 320, U.S. Geol. Surv., 1913, by Meinzer, O. E. and Kelton, F. C..Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 2} “ Geology and Water Resources of Big Smoky, Clayton, and Alkali Spring Valleys, Nevada ”: Water Supply Paper 423, U.S. Geol. Sun., 1917, by Meinzer, Oscar E..Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 1} “ Geology and Water Resources of Sulphur Spring Valley, Arizona,” op. cit., pp. 57–62.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 2} “ The Geology of the Districts around Settle and Harrogate ”: Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. xxii, pt. i, 1911, p. 48.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 3} “ Observations on the New Red Series of Cumberland and Westmorland, with special Reference to Classification ”: Trans. Cumb. and West. Assoc., No. xvii, 1892 (Reprint), p. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 1} Geol. Trans., 2nd ser., vol. iv.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 2} “ On the Permian Rocks of the North-West of England, and their extension into Scotland ”: op. cit., pp. 144–65.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 3} “ Observations in the New Ked Series, etc.”: op. cit., p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 4} Op. cit., pp. 14, 15.

^{page 306 note 5} “ On a Deep Bore at Seascale in Cumberland”: Geol. Mag., 1915, pp. 146–9.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 1} Summary of Progress for 1921, p. 45.

^{page 307 note 2} Summary of Progress for 1922, p. 68.

^{page 307 note 3} B.H. No. 2, Whitbeck: Surface, 323 ft.; Sandstones, 1,178 ft.; Basement Beds, 75 ft.; Fell Rock (Volcanic), faulted against Skiddaw Slates, 24ft.

^{page 307 note 4} “ The Geology of Liverpool, etc.” (Mem. Geol. Surv.), 1923, pp. 79–81. See also Goodchild, op. cit., p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 5} Op. cit., pp. 9–10.

^{page 307 note 6} “ Summary of Progress for 1922 ” (Mem. Geol. Surv.), 1923, p. 60. The views of my colleagues upon the correlation of the New Red and upon the Permo-Triassic sequence will be expressed in the forthcoming memoir on the Carlisle District.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 7} Judging from numerous boreholes the St. Bees facies in the St. Bees–Calder Bridge area, varies between 400 and 800 ft. in thickness, the latter occurring at St. Bees Headland. At Seascale, however, the record showed thick sandstones with only one bed of shale (5 ft.), to a depth of 2,072ft. 11 in., on sandstone with shale joints or partings to a depth of 3,200 ft. It appears to be impossible to draw a definite line between the two facies.

^{page 307 note 8} Goodchild, op. cit., p. 8.

^{page 307 note 9} MSS. in possession of the Survey.

^{page 308 note 1} “ Summary of Progress for 1921 ” (Mem. Geol. Surv.), 1922, p. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 11–14.