Abstract
As you have given publication (NATURE, July 1, p. 210) to the abstract of the paper recently read by Messrs. Monckton and Herries before the Geological Society, in which they assert that their object was to “disprove” the view lately propounded by me, as to the relation of the Bagshot Beds of the London Basin to the London Clay, perhaps you will kindly afford me space to point out to the readers of NATURE (1) that these authors have ignored, in dealing with the question, whole chapters of the evidence upon which my view is based—evidence which is continually accumulating, as two forthcoming papers (one in the press for the Proc. Geol. Assoc., the other in the hands of the editor of the Geol. Mag.) will make manifest enough; (2) that in directing their attention merely to sections at the outcrop of the beds they have added little, if anything, substantially, to that on which the old view was based, while the lithological distinctions of the Upper and Lower Bagshot Beds (where the latter have been for ages under going oxidation) are not sufficiently marked to furnish, in disconnected sections, evidence which can be anything more than, to say the least, equivocal.
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
IRVING, A. The Bagshot Beds. Nature 34, 217 (1886). https://doi.org/10.1038/034217d0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/034217d0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.