Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:14:09.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II.—Second Note on the Pebbles in the Bunter Beds of Staffordshire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

T. G. Bonney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In my brief paper published in this Magazine for 1880 (Decade II. Vol. VII. p. 404), I mentioned that pebbles of felstone were not uncommon in the Bunter conglomerate on the northern part of Cannock Chase. Since that time, as opportunity has occurred, I have been making a more special study of these pebbles, and think it may be worth while publishing a description of some of the commoner varieties, as a contribution to the lithology of this interesting deposit and a help to the determination of the question of the origin of its material. I believe that I have observed most of the varieties, which commonly occur in the district, but do not pretend (for circumstances have not allowed of this) to have made anything like a complete collection. Many of my specimens have been derived from the broken materials spread upon some roads newly made over the portion of the Chase in the vicinity of Rugeley, but several of them were obtained in a large pit in the Bunter itself, by the side of the railway on the road to Hednesford, and I was able by a careful search in it to identify most of the varieties that I had collected elsewhere. I cannot say that erratics are absolutely unknown in this district, but they are extremely rare, and there is practically no danger of making a mistake as to the source of the pebbles. These pebbles of felstone (to use an inclusive term) appear to be by no means rare. I think one could hardly search a couple of square yards of a newly “metalled” road without picking up a fragment. Now and then specimens are found with a dark ground-mass, and occasionally one which seems to be an indurated felspathic breccia; but in the majority there is a certain common character, though there are many varietal differences. These have a compact ground-mass, varying from a pale brick-red (the commonest) to some tint of pinkish-grey.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 10 , Issue 5 , May 1883 , pp. 199 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1883

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 201 note 1 In Luxullianite, Mineralogical Magazine, vol. i. p. 215.Google Scholar

page 204 note 1 I must admit that Mr. Teall in his valuable note to Mr. Harrison's paper shows that the Lickey quartzite presents in some of its microscopic peculiarities a very close resemblance to that of N.W. Scotland and of the Bunter. This, while it deprives me of one point in my argument, does not of course establish an identity between the Bunter pebbles and the Lickey quartzites, but only shows that both have derived their materials from a common source (no doubt Hebridean rocks). In some respects, however, his specimens (which he kindly allowed me to see), do not seem to bear out Mr. Harrison's conclusions.

page 204 note 2 Be it remembered that I have admitted the presence of more than one quartzite here. I speak of the highly altered compact-looking quartzites, which I maintain I can distinguish from the others in almost every case.

page 204 note 3 The greater European rivers during some periods in their history must have transported gravel quite as far as this. See, for instance, Lyell's Antiq. of Man, chap. xvi.

page 205 note 1 Since the date of my last paper I have found two specimens of the compact quartzite with annelid tubes, one of the usual “fossiliferous” quartzite with Lingula Rouaulti, and two pebbles moderately rounded, of May Hill Sandstone. The last two are not quartzite, but one of the ordinary fine brown grits.