In September, 1875, Decade II. Vol. II. p. 394, of this Magazine, I was enabled, after having previously described them in detail, to group all the known British Cretaccous Aporrhaidæ together into four genera; and in March, 1876, I added a fifth genus.

Taking into account the large number of papers that have been published on the Glacial Deposits near Cromer, any further description may appear unnecessary; and it was with this impression that I commenced the systematic examination of the coast three years ago. Before long, however, I found that in many important points the actual facts do not support the accepted theories of the origin of the deposits; and having now made a thorough examination, I lay the results before the reader.

I have just read Mr. Hill's criticism on my views as to the cause of the Glacial Epoch, and have to thank him for the fair and courteous way in which he has treated the subject. I fear Mr. Hill has come to his conclusions somewhat too hastily. He appears to me to have totally misapprehended the real effect of fogs and a snow-covered surface on climate, and also the influence of eccentricity on the trade-winds. But I must defer for the present entering into any discussion on the matter. My object just now is simply to direct attention to an erroneous assumption which appears to lie at the base of nearly all the objections which have been urged against the theory that the Glacial Epoch resulted from an increase of eccentricity.

On the Graptolites of Gothland (Om Gotlands Graptolither). By G. Linnarsson. Ofv. af. Kongl. Vetens. Akad. Förh.; 1879, No. 5, pp. 12.

The island of Gothland, so rich in all other Silurian fossils, is remarkably poor in Graptolites. Angelin and Lindström simply noted the fact of their presence, but did not attempt their identification. At Dr. Lindström's suggestion, Mr. G. Linnarsson here describes and figures the two species that have been procured from these strata, from examples now in the Riks-Musei of Stockholm.

Page 19, line 25 from top, for “rapprochait,” read “rapproche.”.

Page 25, line 13 from bottom, for “la,” read “le.”

Page 26, line 23 from top, for “Pelicanus,” read “ Pelecanus,” and in all subsequent instances to p. 27.

Erratum—January, 1880. In Mr. Kinahan's article, p. 29, line 23, for Killarney read Killary.