^{page 402 note 1} These and the following ill-preserved fossils from the Birkrigg rocks, were obligingly named by Mr. John Rofe, F.G.S.:—Amplexux coralloides; Campopnyllum Murchisoni; Cyathophyllum regium; Cyathophyllum Slutchburyi; Lithostrotion iunceum; Zaphrentis, etc.

^{page 404 note 1} “Manual of Geology,” by Jukes, J. Beete, p. 513.—Since writing the above, it occurred tame to turn to the memoir by Mr. Jukes on the River Valleys of the South of Ireland; and I fear the fact will scarcely be believed, that the description given there of the limestone of the Burren hills, so true to nature as it evidently is, had hitherto entirely escaped my attention.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 2} Prin. of Geol. vol. i. pp. 331 333, Sir Lyell, C..Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 3} Liebig's Chemistry of Agriculture and Physiology, p. 48. There is palpable evidence of the truth of this in the small angular stones (one cannot call them pebbles or shingle) which may be found entangled amongst the grass-roots where the sod is thin. It will be seen that there is a remarkable tendency amongst these to terminate in points, more or less sharp; sometimes in one, awl-like; or in two or more, often closely resembling fossil teeth of fishes. Below, where these occur, are quantities of miniature “rockery stones” of every form and shape. There could not, certainly, be a greater proof, I think, of the absence of wave-action than in these extraordinary examples of limestone débris.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 1} Liebig's Chemistry of Agriculture and Physiology, p. 139.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 2} See Mr. George Maw's papers in the Geological Magazine, 1865, vol. ii. p. 200; 1866, vol. iii. p. 253; and 1867, vol. iv. pp. 241 and 299. —Edit.Google Scholar