page 392 note * e.g. in “Bull. Soc. Beige de Géologie, etc.,” Vol. XVIII., p. 262Google Scholar (“Limon dit des hauts plateaux”).

page 393 note * “Revue archéologique,” July-Aug., 1916, 5th Ser., Vol. 4, p. 179Google Scholar.

^{page 393 note †} “Man,” 1900, No. 80.

page 394 note * Read 30th March, 1916; “Archaelogia,” Vol. LXVII. 49Google Scholar.

^{page 394 note †} This must not be confused with the Contorted Drift which constitutes, with the Cromer Till, the lower Boulder-clay of Norfolk.

^{page 394 note ‡} Map given by Rutot, , “Les deux grandes provinces quaternaires de la France” (Bull. Soc. Préhist. France, 1908)Google Scholar; accepted in principle by Holst, , “Geological Magazine,” 1915, p. 443Google Scholar.

^{page 394 note ∥} Mr. Smith, Worthington is emphatic on this point in “Vict. Hist. Beds.,” Vol. I., p. 151Google Scholar.

page 396 note * The absence of small scrapers from the contorted drift (“Man the Primeval Savage,” p. 96) is all in favour of an earlier date.

^{page 396 note †} One mile N.W. of Gaddesden Row the 600-ft. contour is reached; at two miles the level is 628 ft., and at four miles in the same direction Kenworth lies at 759 ft O.D., where an ochreous implement has been found.

^{page 396 note ‡} “Annales de la Société géologique du Nord,” Vol. XVIII. pp. 93, 205 (Lille, 1890)Google Scholar. For the sequence in outline see “Stone Age Guide” (Brit. Mus., 2nd edn.), p. 34Google ScholarPubMed.

page 399 note * “Bull. Soc. d'Anthrop. Paris,” 1897, p. 130Google ScholarPubMed.

^{page 397 note †} “Revue Anthropologique,” 1911, pp. 182–188Google Scholar.

^{page 397 note ‡} “Bull. Soc. d'Anthrop. Paris,” 1894, p. 185Google ScholarPubMed.

^{page 397 note §} “Compte-rendu” of Geneva Congress (1912), Vol. 1., p. 245Google Scholar; cf. “Revue préhistorique” (1907), Vol. II., pp. 9Google Scholar (footnote) and 160–3.

^{page 397 note ∥} du Puydt, Marcel, etc., “Liège paléolithique” (1913)Google Scholar, with many illustrations.

page 398 note * “Summary of Progress” (Geol. Survey), 1902, pp. 201–1Google ScholarPubMed.

^{page 398 note †} A note on the incorrect use of this term is given in “Quart. Journ. Geog. Soc.,” Vol. LXIX., p. 583 (Boswell)Google Scholar.

^{page 398 note ∥} This is not the ordinary view, see “Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,” Vol. XLIX., p. 317 (Monckton)Google Scholar, and “Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XVII., p. 96 (Whitaker)Google Scholar.

^{page 398 note §} “Proc. Geol. Assoc.” Vol. XIV., p. 28Google Scholar.

page 399 note * “Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,” Vol. XLVIII., p. 360Google Scholar. In the same way he accounts for working-floors not being disturbed by subsequent deposits. In his opinion the plateau gravels gave rise to much of the terrace gravels (“Proc. Geol. Assoc..,” Vol. XIV., p. 11Google Scholar; Vol. XVIII., pp. 417 and 484).

^{page 399 note †} “Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XVII., p. 93Google Scholar.

^{page 399 note ‡} “Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,” Vol. XXVIII., p. 464Google Scholar.

^{page 399 note §} “Proc Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XXI., p. 396Google Scholar.

^{page 399 note ∥} “Proc. E. Anglian Prehc. Soc.,” Vol. II., p. 114Google Scholar.

page 400 note * “Annales de la Soc. Géol. du Nord,” Vol. XVIII., p. 148Google Scholar.

^{page 400 note †} “Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XVIII., p. 483Google Scholar.

^{page 400 note ‡} “Geol. Mag.,” March, 1916, p. 111Google Scholar.

^{page 400 note §} “The Gravels of East Anglia,” p. 33.

^{page 400 note ∥} “Transactions,” Vol. IV., p. 95Google Scholar.

page 401 note * Two flints labelled palaeolithic, Felstead brick-pit, 1884, Nos. 45 and 64, with Mr. Rowe's initials, are exhibited in Chelmsford Museum. No. 45 may be the fourth described above, but No. 64 is a round, steep-nosed scraper, 2 in. long and 1 in thick at the centre.

^{page 401 note †} Similarly the Boulder-clay at Highgate comes in at the foot of the south slope of the hill and is not met with at a higher level (Prestwich, , “Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,” Vol. XLVI., p. 163Google Scholar, pl. VII., fig. 3).

page 402 note * The Boulder-clay noticed by Mr. Worthington Smith on the Downs near Dunstable, a possible source of the relaid mass referred to, is doubted by Prof. Gregory, (“Natural Science.” Vol. V. (1894). p. 103)Google Scholar; but it is mapped at Little Bramingham (3 miles N. of Luton) and at half-a-mile west of Caddington.

^{page 402 note †} “Natural Science,” Vol. V. (1894), p. 102Google Scholar.

^{page 402 note ‡} By Mr. Worthington Smith and Mr. Fred. Gurney. The simplest course is to regard them as derived from the brickearth denuded at this point by the headwaters of the Lea.

^{page 402 note §} “Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,” Vol. XLVIII., p. 371Google Scholar; XLV11., pp. 575 and 583 (Allen Brown); cf. also “Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XII., p. 334Google Scholar; Vol, XIV., pp. 167 and 327. No Boulder-clay is mapped in the neighbourhood and it is only fair to state that Dr. Hicks claimed the local day-with-flints as its equivalent.

^{page 402 note ∥} “Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,” Vol. LXIX., p. 581Google Scholar.

page 403 note * The phrase is used by Prestwich, (“Quart. Journ. Soc.,” Vol. XLVII., 125Google Scholar, pl. VI., fig. 2) and more recently by Messrs. Sherlock & Noble (Vol. LXVIII., 203).

^{page 403 note †} “Proc. E.A.P.S.,” Vol. II., p. 113Google Scholar.

^{page 403 note ‡} “Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,” Vol. XLV., p. 294Google Scholar, pl. X., esp. figs. 4–7; classification adopted by Messrs, Hinton & Kennard, (“Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XIX., p. 80)Google Scholar.

page 404 note * A parallel case is recorded from Caddington, (“Man, the Primeval Savage,” p. 116)Google Scholar, where a re-chipped ochreous implement from the red-clay drift was found in the brickearth, proving incidentally the relative ages of the two deposits.

^{page 404 note †} “Archæologia,” Vol. LXV., p. 187Google Scholar.

^{page 404 note ‡} This is corroborated by Mr. Dewey, who finds this tint is associated with a peculiar deposit on the North Downs (“Proc. E. Angl. Prehc. Soc.,” Vol. II., p. 108)Google Scholar.

page 405 note * Beside those figured by Prestwich, see specimens collected by the late Mr. Spurrell, (“Archæologia Cantiana,” Vol. XV., pl. opp. p. 92)Google Scholar and by Mr. Harrison, figured by Mr. Abbott, Lewis in “Natural Science,” Vol. IV. (1894), pp. 262–3Google Scholar; and others collected by Mr. Dewey, (“Proc. E. Angl. Prehc. Soc.,” Vol. II., p. 109Google Scholar, pl. XXV., figs. 8–13). A cordate specimen from Ipswich, at 120 ft. O.D., is figured in “Journ. Anthrop. Inst.,” XXXIII. (N.S. VI.), pl. V., fig. 4, p. 42; and some from Caddington, at 595 ft. O.D. and 116 ft. above the valley, are given in “Vict. Hist. Beds.,” Vol. I., pp. 151 and 157Google Scholar, figs. 31, 32, 33.

^{page 405 note †} It is about 50 ft. above the head-waters of the Darenth, and was described by Topley as follows:— The gravel on Limpsfield Common is coarse and not altogether what we should expect a river-gravel to be. It lies moreover on the watershed, and could not, of course, have been made by the Darenth i f the drainage area had always been what we now find it. Larger and thicker than any other patches of gravel lower down the valley, it perhaps suffered less denudation. It is improbable that the higher streams of the Darenth were ever able to form such gravel as that at Limpsfield, which is evidently only the remains of a larger mass (“Geology of the Weald,” pp. 297, 193).

^{page 405 note ‡} “Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,” Vol. XLVII., p. 137Google Scholar; see also “Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XI., p. lxxxii. (Bell); Vol. XV., p. 271 (Salter); Vol. XXI., p. 59 (Martin and Treacher); Evans, “Stone Implements” (2nd edn.), p. 609Google Scholar.

^{page 405 note §} Thanks are due to these gentlemen not only for giving access to their cabinets but also for imparting useful information as to the distribution of the implements and the local geological conditions.

page 406 note * Highly ferruginous gravels, as at Kempston, Beds., or at Dunbridge, Hants., might be expected to produce a majority of ochreous implements; but in the Thames gravels, ochreous implements are in a minority.

page 407 note * “Geol. Mag.,” February, 1916, p. 58Google Scholar, pl. IV.

^{page 407 note †} Woodward, H. B., “Geology of the London District,” p. 71Google Scholar.

^{page 407 note ‡} “Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XIX., p. 242Google Scholar, and “Essex Naturalist,” Vol. XIII., pp. 329–336Google Scholar.

^{page 407 note §} E.g., by Mr. P. A. B. Martin, of Chipstead.

^{page 407 note ∥} Prestwich, “Controverted Questions,” pl. XI., fig. 39.

^{page 407 note ¶} “Proc. Soc. Antiq. Lond.,” Vol. XXVIII., pp. 26–48Google Scholar.

page 408 note * White, Osborne, “Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XIV., p. 18Google Scholar.

^{page 408 note †} “Proc. Geol. Assoc.,” Vol. XXVI., p. 12Google Scholar; Vol. XXVII., pp. 137, 139.