Through the intervention of my friend Mr. William Whitaker, F.R.S., I, some time ago, received from Mr. G. W. Colenutt, F.G.S., of Hanway Lodge, Ryde, Isle of Wight, 26 small slabs of Osborne clay, on which are preserved, in a more or less good state (generally less), a series of prawns and small shrimp-like Crustaceans, collected by him from the Oligocene strata, Chapelcorner Copse, between King's Quay and Wootton Creek, just to the west of the Boat-house, on the shore below Binstead House; also on the shore below Ryde House, and immediately to the south-east of Sea View Pier; where (especially at Chapelcorner Copse) extremely interesting exposures of the Osborne Beds may be seen and studied, between the base of the cliff and low-water mark (see p. 99).

The fossil shrimps or prawns briefly described in the preceding paper by Dr. H. Woodward occur in the ‘fish-clay’ of the Osborne Series at Chapelcorner Copse, Binstead House, Ryde House, and Sea View, Isle of Wight, and they were first discovered by me in these beds about the year 1876. Having regard to the fact that new species of fish, etc., have been recently obtained from the Osborne Beds, it would seem that these prawns are very probably also new to English strata.

The labours of Mr. Benjamin Harrison around Ightham, in Kent, have been before the scientific world since May, 1889, when Sir Joseph Prestwich read his now historic paper before the Geological Society “On the occurrence of Palæolithic Flint Implements in the neighbourhood of Ightham, Kent; their distribution and probable age.”

In the course of conversation with Professor J. Park, the Director of our School of Mines. I first heard of the occurrence of a gigantic pedunculated Cirripede in certain Tertiary deposits on the east coast of the North Island of this colony. I then wrote to Mr. T. F. Cheeseman, the Curator of the Auckland Museum, in which some remains were exhibited: in answer to my request, Mr. Cheeseman very generously loaned me these remains, and the following notes are founded on them. I will here express my thanks to this gentleman for the readiness with which he has, in this and other instances, complied with my request for the loan of specimens out of his museum. But these few fragments do not represent all that is known of the animal; for I understand that abundant material, collected by Professor Park during his geological survey, is entombed in boxes in the Colonial Museum at Wellington, and Professor Thomas, of Auckland, also possesses, as he informs me, a fair supply of valves, collected by himself.

I have, however, not been able to examine either of these collections. And although the present contribution is very incomplete, yet I hope that it will stimulate the possessors of better material to supplement or correct my remarks; at any rate, it will serve to direct the attention of European geologists and zoologists to the existence in late geologic times of a Cirripede remarkable chiefly for its gigantic size, far surpassing any member of the group hitherto, known to science.

Concerning the origin of the Mosasaurs three altogether different views exist: G. Baur regarded the Mosasaurs as highly specialized aquatic Varanoids; Boulenger is inclined to trace their origin back to the Neocomian Dolichosaurs; and Osborn, in a recent paper, doubts that Varanids and Mosasaurs sprang from a common stem, and regards the latter as “a very ancient offshoot of the Lacertilia.” Some Lacertilia found in recent years in the Lower Cretaceous of Dalmatia, and not yet fully compared with the Mosasaurs, will, I believe, throw fresh light on this subject. Among the fossil Lacertilia found in Dalmatia two types can be distinguished, namely, Dolichosaurs and Aigialosaurs, the former including the genera Dolichosaurus Owen, Pontosaurus Gorjanovic-Kramberger (= Hydrosaurus lesinensis, Kornh.), Acteosaurus Meyer, and Adriosaurus Seeley; the latter, Aigialosaurus G. Kramberger, Garsosaurus Kornh., Opetiosaurus Kornh., and perhaps also Mesoleptos Cornaglia.

The pleasant relations normally existing among geologists, biologists, and physicists have of late become a trifle strained on the question of the age of the earth. Biologists, having failed to induce either geologists or physicists to draw sufficiently large cheques on the bank of time, have taken to signing the same them-selves, adding the ciphers ad lib. Professor Poulton has ably championed the rights of the biologists to do so, and in the course of his argument he contends that there is evidence in the sedimentary strata to show that their rate of formation was not greater than that at which deposits are now being accumulated.

So far as I am aware, Professor Poulton's contention has not been either controverted or supported by any geologist. Hence it seems to be a suitable subject for discussion in the Geological Magazine.

In the first place, then, what would be the nature of the evidence we might a priori expect to find to show that one set of beds was accumulated in a shorter time than another of equal thickness ? Would there, in fact, be any difference such as would enable us positively to decide the question ?

Secondly, we may examine and compare rocks which we know, or have reason to suppose, have been formed at different rates. Now, according to Sir A. Geikie, if the rocks of the stratified systems were laid down at the greatest rate suggested by the facts of denudation. 73,000,000 years would be required; if at the least, 680,000,000.

Mr. J. W. Knowles, M.R.I.A., of Ballymena, read a paper on what appeared to him to be flints chipped similarly to the eoliths, which he had found in the Interglacial gravels of Ireland. This gave rise to a discussion, in which five speakers in succession gave reasons, or rather expressed opinions, adverse to their artificial character; and as these seemed based on some misconceptions, and also as I was the only one who spoke for them, and was told I must be brief, and so could not fully reply to them, I do so in the present form, and I state, as far as I remember, what took place in as few words as possible.

Mr. Knowles himself took a neutral position, but suggested that, if they were implements at all, they might have been used as scrapers for scraping hæmatite.

The objections were: that these so-called eoliths were found in such extraordinary numbers that they might be the result of natural causes, and that their upholders must disprove this; that the flints in question were those of the Clay-with-Flints, a deposit due to the chemical dissolution of the Chalk-with-Flints; that, if admitted to be artificial, they could not be older than the Palæolithic implements of the high levels, as they were both found in the same deposits; that similar flints were to be found in the Boulder-clay, and, as man was post-Glacial, that was a positive refutation.