Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T11:23:19.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

III.—The Purbeck Beds of the Vale of Wardour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Extract

The paper written by the Rev. W. R. Andrews and myself, published in 1894, gave a more complete account of these beds than had previously been attempted; we showed that they were divisible into Lower, Middle, and Upper groups, comparable with those established by Professor E. Forbes in the Purbecks of Dorset, and characterized by the same species of Cyprides. This paper was based on the joint examination of exposures visible in 1890, though one of us, being then resident at Teffont, had observed and collected from these exposures for many years.

In the following year (1895) Mr. H. B. Woodward's memoir on the “Middle and Upper Oolitic Rocks” was published, and his account differed from ours in several particulars, notably as regards the thickness of beds referable to the three several divisions, as to the interpretation of the section near Dinton Station, and as to the total thickness of the formation. We refrained from comment at the time, partly because we were prepared to accept such corrections as were based on the freshly cut exposure near Dinton, and partly because the mapping of the distriot had not then been completed, and we were content to wait till this was done, in the expectation that Mr. Woodward would then reconsider some of the points on which we were not in agreement with him.

The mapping of the area was completed in 1900 by Mr. C. Keid, and this year (1903) the map (Sheet 298, new series), together with an explanatory memoir prepared by Mr. Reid, have been published.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1903

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

1 I admit an error in our computations of thickness on p. 66 of Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc, vol. L, due to our having counted in twice beds which we now recognize to be the same.