^{page 544 note 1} For an account of the Lower Carboniferous succession in the district, reference should be made to the paper by MrEdmonds, C. on “The Carboniferous Limestone Series of West Cumberland,” Geol. Mag., LIX, 1922, 74–83 and 117–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am indebted to Mr. Edmonds also for supplying the details from which the sections (Fig. 2) have been constructed.

^{page 547 note 1} Summary of Progress for 1927, Geol. Surv. of Great Britain, 23–36.Google Scholar

^{page 547 note 2} Loc. cit., 33.

^{page 549 note 1} Mem. Geol. Surv. Spec. Rep., Haematites of West Cumberlend, etc., 2nd ed., 1924, 36.Google Scholar

^{page 549 note 2} This is paralleled by the deposition of calcite and dolomite crystals on quartz, or on quartz and specular haematite in many loughs.

^{page 550 note 1} It is of interest to observe that Mr. Dixon records the following mineral sequence in a lough, “Kidney-ore, specular iron ore, quartz, fluor.” Summary of Progress, 1928, 31. By this sequence the fact is again emphasized that the fluorspar solutions were at work later than the haematite solutions.

^{page 550 note 2} A heavy mineral separation was made from two samples of Brockram supplied by Dr. B. Smith from the east side of the Egremont Road near the Bigrigg Fault (Geol. Surv. Mem., Haematite, 2nd ed., 1924, 41–2). No fluorspar was found, but both specimens gave a very heavy crop of barytes, which tended to obscure the presence of other heavy minerals; these, however, included zircon, rutile, tourmaline, magnetite (as rounded grains), and staurolite. One specimen yielded gypsum, together with a small fragment of kidney-ore and of a rugose coral, which had been converted into iron-oxide. The presence of staurolite is of interest as this mineral has not been found in the underlying Carboniferous rocks of the district. Both the gypsum and the barytes appear to be present as authigenous minerals.Google Scholar

^{page 550 note 3} Finlayson, A. M., “The Metallogeny of the British Isles,” Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lxvi, 1910, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 550 note 4} Gilligan, A., Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc., xix, 1918, 289–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and H. C. Versey, ibid., xx, 1925, 207. A. Holmes and H.F. Harwood believe “the general mineralization followed the intrusion of the whin sill and preceded the formation of the Yellow Sands”(Permian), Min Mag., xxi, 1928, 532.

^{page 550 note 5} Mem. Geol. Surv. Spec. Rep., Lead and Zinc Ores of Northumberland and Alston Moor, 1923, by Smith, Stanley.Google Scholar

^{page 551 note 1} This information was supplied by Mr. C. Edmonds, who informs me that “fluorspar occurs at Langhorn in the First Limestone, the sandstone below, the Second Limestone and at the top of the Orebank Sandstone”. In the last instance the sandstone sometimes contains hollow spheres of haematite within which Mr. Edmonds has found cubes of fluorspar. These spheres are of concretionary origin and many of them contain no fluorspar. Other occurrences of fluorspar in West Cumberland are mentioned by Mr. Dixon (op. cit., 1928, 31).

^{page 551 note 2} The occurrence of stalagmites and stalactites composed of fluorspar and barytes in a cave on the Bailey property, Madoc, Ontario, is recorded by Wilson, M. E., Geol. Surv. Canada, Econ. Series, No. 6, 15 and 67.Google Scholar

^{page 553 note 1} Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., lxxi, 1917, 612.Google Scholar

^{page 555 note 1} Woolridge, S. W., Proc. Geol. Assoc., 1926, 98Google Scholar, and Fleet, W. F., Geol. Mag., 1926, 505–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 556 note 1} MissReynolds, D. L., Geol. Mag., 1928, 465.Google Scholar

^{page 556 note 2} Gregory, J. W., Geol. Mag., 1915.Google Scholar

^{page 557 note 1} Bosworth, T. O., Proc. Geol. Assoc., 1913, 57, and pls. 10 and 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 557 note 2} Barrett, B. H., Geol. Mag., 1929, 480.Google Scholar

^{page 557 note 3} Goodchild, J. G., Trans. Cumb. & Westmoreland Assoc., No. 16, 1890–1891, 134Google Scholar, and Edmonds, Ch, Geol. Mag., 1922, 77 and 78.Google Scholar