Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T01:24:13.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV.—Note on the Discovery of a Bone of a Monkey in the Norfolk ‘Forest-Bed’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Martin A. C. Hinton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Upper Freshwater division of the Norfolk Forest-Bed Series at West Runton contains two distinct horizons, viz., a lower, consisting of a rather thick deposit of clay and peat, and an upper, containing a thin seam of gravelly sand, crowded with land and fresh-water shells, on which reposes the pebble-bed found at the base of the ‘Leda-myalis’ series. My friend Mr. G. White and I have lately collected extensively from the West Runton deposits, and have been rewarded with the discovery of several hitherto unknown voles, etc., which I hope to describe ere long. On comparing the voles from the lower series with those from the upper part of the Upper Freshwater bed one finds considerable differences between them, and I believe that similar differences are shown by the mollusca from the two horizons. These faunistic differences are of course not so great as those which have been shown by Dr. Forsyth Major to exist between the East Runton deposit and the West Runton series taken as a whole, but still they are similar in kind.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 5 , Issue 10 , October 1908 , pp. 440 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1908

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 441 note 1 Pomel, : Comptes Rendus, cxv, p. 157.Google Scholar

page 441 note 2 Pomel, : Carte Géol. Algérie, Monog. Pal., 1897, pl. iii.Google Scholar

page 442 note 1 Pomel, : Comptes Rendus, cxv, p. 158.Google Scholar

page 442 note 2 Depéret, : Mém. Soc. Géol. France, Pal. Mém. No. 3, p. 15, pl. i, fig. 4, and p. 125, pi. xii, fig. 6.Google Scholar

page 442 note 3 Owen, : Magazine of Natural History, 09, 1839, p. 446.Google Scholar

page 442 note 4 Owen, : “British Fossil Mammals,” 1846, p. 3.Google Scholar

page 442 note 5 Owen, : Palæontology, 1860, p. 341.Google Scholar

page 442 note 6 Owen, : Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 1862, ser. iii, vol. x, p. 240.Google Scholar

page 442 note 7 Kowalevsky, “Anthracotherium” pt. i: Palæontographica, Bd. xxii, p. 211.

page 442 note 8 Owen, : Comptes Eendus, xxi, p. 573.Google Scholar

page 442 note 9 Owen, : “British Fossil Mammals,” 1846, p. xlvi.Google Scholar

page 443 note 1 Lydekker, : Cat. Foss. Mamra. Brit. Mus., 1885, pt. i, p. 4.Google Scholar

page 443 note 2 Lydekker, : “A Geographical History of Mammals,” 1896, p. 180.Google Scholar

page 443 note 3 Flower, & Lydekker, : “Mammals Living and Extinct,” 1891, p. 723.Google Scholar

page 443 note 4 Beyrich, : Abhand. d. Akad. d. Wiss. z. Berlin aus d. Jahre 1860, p. 23, 1861.Google Scholar

page 443 note 5 Forsyth Major: Atti del Soc. Ital., 1872, xv, p. 86.

page 443 note 6 Dawkins, & Sanford, : Monographs of the Palæontographical Society, 1872, pp. xix and l.Google Scholar

page 443 note 7 Dawkins, : Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. xxiii, p. 101Google Scholar; ibid., vol. xxv, p. 199; ibid., vol. xxxvi, p. 398.

page 443 note 8 Hinton, & Kennard, : Essex Naturalist, vol. xi, pp. 347–53.Google Scholar

page 443 note 9 Falconer, & Cautley, : Trans. Geol. Soc., of London, 1837, vol. v, p. 499Google Scholar, and reprinted in “Palæontological Memoirs,” 1868, vol. i, p. 292. The opening paragraph of this classical paper puts this view in the most striking manne possible.

page 444 note 1 Hinton: Proc. Geol. Assoc, vol. xx, p. 52. This question is more fully discussed in my account of the High Terrace Mammalia, which I hope will shortly appear, and in an account of the British Fossil Voles and Lemmings which I am preparing.

page 444 note 2 Lartet: Ann. d. Sci. Nat., serie v, tome viii.

page 444 note 3 Cocchi, “Su di due scimie fossili italiane,” 1872; and Forsyth Major, Atti del Soc. Ital., xv, p. 89; Ristori, Boll. Comit. Geol., 1890.

page 444 note 4 Gervais, : Zool. et Pal. Français, 1859, p. 11, figs. 4, 5, M. priscus.Google Scholar

page 444 note 5 Lydekker, : Rec. Geol. Surv. India, xi, p. 66Google Scholar, and xii, p. 41, pi. i, M. sivalensis.

page 444 note 6 Pomel, : Comptes Rendus, vol. cxv, p. 157Google Scholar, and Carte Géol. Algérie, Mon. Pal., 1897, pl. iii.

page 444 note 7 Harlè, : Mèm. Soc. d'hutoire nat. de Toulouse, 1892, p. 2Google Scholar, and Cat. Palæon. Quatern., 1899, p. 27. I have not seen the latter work.

page 444 note 8 Hedinger, : Neues Jahrbuch f. Min., 1891, Bd. i, p. 169, Taf. 10.Google Scholar

page 444 note 9 Busk, : Trans. Zool. Soc, vol. x, p. 129Google Scholar. Trouessart (Cat. Mamm., vol. i, p. 26Google Scholar) mentions Macacus fossilis, Gibraltar, a record based on the following reference by Calderon, (Q.J.G.S., vol. xxxiii, p. 128)Google Scholar: “Quadrumana: Peñon of Gibraltar? Imrie,” but I believe Busk's statement to be accurate.