A 137Kb PDF file of a paper produced in 1975. Against some advice from Hugh Torrens, I submitted this to the Geological Magazine. His opinion was that this was run by ex students of Professor Hemingway and they would not take kindly to any criticism of him. I did not believe that this would colour their opinion and went ahead. He was correct and this is the main body of the subsequent letter I recieved back: "
We have considered, it carefully and have concluded that without adding a great deal to our knowledge of the rocks it might cause nomenclature confusion and further controversy which would advance our science a relatively small distance for the trouble it would cause. We also have very much competition for our space, so all in all we have decided not to publish." I was taken aback by this as they appeared to be prepared to ignore priority in the naming of units and the use of un-natural and in fact downright flawed Formations, which mix units with differing lithologies, depositional environments and histories (i.e non Marine sandstones and marine intercalations). I then thought of sending it to the Geolologist's Association, but time was short, I was finishing my thesis and any spare time was taken up preparing the Geol. Soc Correlation Charts. This, in fact, was the eventual resting place of these arguments (Parsons, 1980, p. 17). I would have let it rest there, until I found the following quotation: "Further modifications suggested by Parsons (in Cope et al. 1980) have not been adopted by most subsequent workers."(P.F. Rawson & J.K Wright,1995, p. 181). Of course not, most workers in this area are Hemingway ex students and whatever they are, many of them are not stratigraphers. The following record is thus yet another attempt to settle the argument, which started in 1949, between P.C Sylvester-Bradley and J. H. Hemingway, which took place within the Geological Magazine. Pity that the later editors were not so broad minded!
On a different tack a more recent work (Powell, J.H. & Rathbone, R.A.,1985, Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc, 44, pp. 365-373) has shown the equivalence, of the Blow Gill and Eller Beck beds and the contiguity of this single marine unit across the Market Weighton structure. This in no way changes the overall conclusions of my my paper here, but would mean some minor changes to the diagrams.