Each ley or track was as separate and distinct from other leys as each animal or tree is an organism distinct from other animals or trees. As they crossed each other, no doubt users often transferred from one to the other at the crossing, and struck out in an altered direction, hence the place name element “turn.” But the way thus travelled was a route, not a road. It is an absurdity to speak of a sighted road having branches, or bending. Each individual track was “a long lane that has no turning.” Previous writers, treating, say, of Roman or of mediæval roads, not knowing of the existence of the ley, assume that they are speaking of original primary structures, when they are only describing a route evolved from a number of the leys I describe, retaining the sighted structure in the case of Roman roads, but losing most of it by mediæval times. Many leys acquired in after ages individual names from the use they were put to, and such names were transferred to the sighting points. I find in several cases a group of leys with sighting points passing quite close to, and taking no notice of, quite a distinct group of leys with other sighting points, the two sets being either of two different periods, or part of separate systems made by different sets of ley-men living in different districts. A most surprising fact is the enormous number of leys. MOUNDS. The mounds whose many names I have mentioned are artificial. I do not question the fact that they were often used as burial mounds, and perhaps even built with that end in view; but the straight leys on which I find practically all in this district line up (in connection with other sighting points) prove their primary purpose to be sighting tumps. Arthur’s Stone, a dolmen, which was probably the core of a burial tump, is on two sighting lines.