^{page 166 note 1} It is marked as triplicate, but obviously it is usually biplicate.

^{page 166 note 2} In 1874, in the 3rd edition of the “Geology of Yorkshire,” this name was abandoned for Buckland's, reference being made to “ pl. xiv, fig. 10,” but the reference is obviously to the “ Geology of Oxford,” where it is figured with Bucklaud's name in the legend.

^{page 167 note 1} (A) Irving, A., “The Red Rocks of the Devon Coast-Section”: Q.J.G.S., vol. XLIV (May, 1888).Google Scholar

(B) Irving, A., “Supplementary Note on the Red Rocks of the Devon Coast-Section”: Q.J.G.S., vol. XLVIII (Feb. 1892).Google Scholar

(C) Irving, A., “The Base of the Keuper Formation in Devon”: Q.J.G.S., vol. XLIX (Feb. 1893).Google Scholar

(H) Hull, E., F.R.S., “A Comparison of the Red Rocks of the South Devon Coast with those of the Midland and Western Counties”: Q.J.G.S., vol. XLVIII (Feb. 1892).Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 2} In a letter to me afterwards Professor Hull went even further, and declared himself inclined to view, in the light of these later facts, all the so-called Lower Bunter of the Midlands as more closely related to the Permian than the Trias. For my part, I should, in the light of my work iu Central Germany in 1883 (see Q.J.G.S. for August, 1884), hesitate to go so far as that. It would tend to drag us back into the Murchisoniau confusion of thought, arising from insufficiency of observation, which it was the definite purpose of that paper (and of one supplementary to it in the GEOL. MAG. of that year) to clear away. My contention was, and is, simply that the marl series of Devon are the equivalents of the identically similar marls, which are interbedded with the Magnesian Limestone beds of the Permian in the regions to the east of the Pennine Chain, and conspicuously so in Notts; and that the Lower Bunter of the Midlands is wanting in the basin south of the Mendip Axis, even as Professor Hull, in his work on “The Permian and Triassic Rocks of the Midland Counties,” has shown it to be wanting in various successions in the Severn country, to which references are given in my papers. See further my paper“Twenty Years' Work at the Younger Red Rocks” (GEOL. MAG., August, 1894).

^{page 168 note 1} These were exhibited at the meetings of the Geological Society when my papers were read.

^{page 169 note 1} I recollect noticing at the time how the mouth of the Sid was blockcd by a dam of shingle, through which the water percolated in reverse directions at high and low tide. Is it worth while to ask if, in the course of fifteen years or so, this shingle-bank may not have been driven by tidal action further east, and covered up the lower portion of the section as Hull and I saw it, with the obliquely bedded Eunter Sand-stone below the breccia ? That question any resident in the locality can answer for himself.

^{page 170 note 1} Had he weighed the meaning of the footnote to p. 153 of paper A, he might have seen that it was intended to suggest an explanation of the “nobbly and concretionary structure” of which he makes mention. I observed it as a later development on the lace of the cliff (?). Those familiar with the splendid natural sections of the Himlaek Stone (Notts) will see the force of this all the better.

^{page 170 note 2} From my notebook.

^{page 171 note 1} There is a misprint in line 10, p. 150, where “more fully developed” should read “more feebly developed.”