Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:36:54.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II.—The ‘Trias’ of Moray

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

D. M. S. Watson
D. M. S. Watson
Affiliation:
Beyer Fellow of the Manchester University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Reptiliferous Sandstone of Moray first attracted attention in 1851, on the discovery in it by Patrick Duff of a skeleton of Telerpeton elyinense at Spynie. This was described by Mantell (17), but did not raise any doubts as to the age of the bed in which it was found, which was at that time universally regarded as Upper Old Red Sandstone. This opinion was not disturbed until Huxley showed that Stagonolepis Robertsoni, Ag., was a crocodilian, the allies of which were of Triassic age (9); when Huxley showed that Hyperodapedon occurred in the undoubted Trias of Coton End, near Warwick (11), the point was generally regarded as settled. Meanwhile some footprints had been found by Captain Brickenden (6) at Cummingstone, near Elgin, which were recognized by Huxley to be similar to those described by Sir William Jardine from Annandale. The discovery by C. Moore (19) that the well-known quarry at. Linksfield, formerly supposed to be in rocks of Wealden age, was really opened in beds of Rhætic age appeared to be a strong argument in favour of the Triassic age of the reptile-bearing beds. It had, however, already been shown by Hugh Miller (18) that this mass was really a boulder resting on an ice-scratched surface of the subjacent rocks, hence the evidence drawn from the occurrence of this mass is quite inconclusive. The discovery by Professor Judd (15) that a small patch of a rock identical in physical characters with the cherty rock of Stotfield existed on the north side of the Moray Firth, which was conformably covered by an unfossiliferous series of beds which graded up into the Lower Lias, afforded further evidence of the correctness of Huxley's conclusions as to the age of these beds.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , March 1909 , pp. 102 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1909

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.Amalitzky, V. 1900. Soc. Imp. des naturalistes a St. Petersbourg. December 28, 1899.Google Scholar
2.Amalitzky, V. 1900. Review of the above. By , G. J. H.: Geol. Mag., Vol. XXXVIII, p. 231.Google Scholar
3.Amalitzky, V. 1901. Compte Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences, tome 132, p. 591.Google Scholar
4.Boulenger, G. A. 1904. “Some Reptilian Remains from the Trias of Elgin”: Phil. Trans., 196, B, p. 175.Google Scholar
5.Boulenger, G. A.Google Scholar
6.Brickenden, R. T. 1852. “Discovery of Reptilian Foot-tracks and Remains in the Old Red or Devonian of Moray: Q.J.G.S., vol. viii, pp. 97–100, pl. iii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Gase, C. E. “A Revision of the Pelycosauria of North America”: Carnegie Institution, Pub. No. 55, 1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Hickling, H. G. A. 1906. “On some Footprints from the Permian of Mansfield”: Q.J.G.S., vol. lxii, p. 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Huxley, T. H. 1859. “On Stagonolepis Robertson, Ag., of the Elgin Sandstone and Footmarks in Sandstone of Cummingstone”: Q.J.G.S., vol. xv, p. 440, pl. xiv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Huxley, T. H. 1867. “On a New Specimen of Telerpetun Elginense”: Q.J.G.S., vol. xxiii, p. 72.Google Scholar
11.Huxley, T. H. 1869. “On Hyperodapedon”: Q.J.G.S., vol. xxv, p. 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Huxley, T. H. 1875. “Stugonolepis Robertsoni aud the Evolution of the Crocodilia”: Q.J.G.S., vol. xxxi, p. 423, pl. xix.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Huxley, T. H. 1887. “Further Observations on Hyperodapedon Gordoni”: Q.J.G.S., vol. xliii, p. 675, pis. xxvi and xxvii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Huxley, T. H. “Stagonolcpis Robertsoni”: Mem. Geol. Surv. Eng., Mon. 3.Google Scholar
15.Judd, J. W. 1873. “The Secondary Rocks of Scotland”: Q.J.G.S., vol. xxxix, p. 97, pl. vii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Judd, J. W. 1885. “The Relation of the Reptiliferous Sandstone of Moray to the Upper Old Red”: Proc. Roy. Soc., No. 24, p. 394.Google Scholar
17.Mantell, G. A. 1852. “On the Impression of a Skeleton of a Reptile from the Old Red Sandstone of Spynie, near Elgin”: Q.J.G.S., vol. viii, p. 100.Google Scholar
18.Miller, H. “The Voyage of the Betsy.”Google Scholar
19.Moore, C. 1860. “The so-called Wealden of Linksfield and the Reptiliferous Sandstone of Elgin”: (Abs.) Q.J.G.S., vol. xvi, p. 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Newton, E. T. 1893. “On some New Reptiles from the Elgin Sandstones”: Phil. Trans., vol. 184, B, p. 431.Google Scholar
21.Newton, E. T. 1894. “Reptiles from the Elgin Sandstone. Description of two new Genera”: Phil. Trans., vol. 185, B, p. 573.Google Scholar
22.Owen, R. 1880. “Description ot parts of the Skeleton of an Anomodent Reptile (Platypodosaurus robustus, Owen) from the Trias of Graaff Reinet, S. Africa”: Q.J.G.S., vol. xxxvi, p. 424.Google Scholar
23.Woodward, A. S. 1907. “On Seleromochlus Taylori from the Trias of Elgin”: Q.J.G.S., vol. lxiii, p. 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar