Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
During the last six years the sea has continued to encroach on a part of the Norfolk coast, near Trimingham, which has been the subject of much controversy. Our last visit (prior to this year) was in April, 1906, when the most noted of the chalk masses had been reduced to an arch with one pier of chalk and the other of boulderclay. That was described (with a diagram), and another account, with a photographic illustration, was given in the same volume by the late Mr. W. H. Hudleston, who apparently had not seen our paper.
page 289 note 1 See this Magazine, 1905, pp. 397, 478, 524, 525;Google Scholar and 1906, pp. 13, 400, 525.
page 289 note 2 For reasons stated in this Magazine (1905, p. 398) we prefer the name of boulder-clay for this material to that of till.
page 289 note 3 This Magazine, 1906, pp. 400, 525.Google Scholar
page 289 note 4 See this Magazine, 1905, Pl. XXII (from a photograph by Mr. R. T. Mallet) and a sketch-plan (made by Mr. Hill at Easter, 1905) published on p. 401 in the volume for that year. They are represented (from slightly different points of view) in the photographs illustrating Mr. Brydone's paper: Ibid., Pl. III, Fig. 4; Pl V, Fig. 10; Pl. VIII, Figs. 13, 14; also Pl. IX, Fig. 18.
page 289 note 5 For reasons given in this Magazine (1906, p. 570), we use the terms ‘east’ and ‘west’ for the trend of the coast as more correct than the ‘south’ and ‘north’ of earlier observers.
page 290 note 1 We believe that this was at the Marl Point of the Ordnance Survey map.
page 290 note 2 It looked like a representative of the Forest Bed group, but we did not happen to see any rootlets or stems.
page 290 note 3 Reproduced from Professor Bonney's paper in Geol. Mag., 09, 1906, p. 401.Google Scholar
page 290 note 4 The tide had not risen much on the occasion of our second visit, when photographs were taken.
page 291 note 1 The gravel and the attached chalk are to be seen (though, of course, less clearly than now) on Figs. 10, 11, Pl. V (Brydone, loc. cit.). These indicate that it must have been a few yards farther from Cromer than the right-hand mass of chalk (that marked E in the Plate illustrating our paper in this Magazine for 1903, Plate XXII), or about north of the east end of E in the plan on p. 401
page 292 note 1 It was well seen here, and we thought the chalk pebbles became a little less numerous in the middle part of the exposure.
page 293 note 1 So far as I remember, it approached 20 feet in length, and was at the base a little wider than that, but I could not do more than make a rough sketch of it as I was going back to my hotel to return to London. (T. G. B.)
page 293 note 2 Bonney, T. G., Brit. Assoc. Rep., 1910, pp. 22, 23.Google Scholar
