THE MAGAZINE 



OF 



NATURAL HISTORY, 



FEBRUARY, 1839. 



Art I. — New Doubts relating to the supposed Didelphis of Stones- 

 field. 1 By M. De Blainville. 



[M. De Blainville introduces the present memoir with some general ob- 

 servations explanatory of the reasons which have led him to enter so fully 

 into details, in laying before the Academy his opinions upon the subject 

 under discussion]. 



It was under the influence of these sentiments that I had the 

 honour of reading before the Academy on the 20th of August 

 last, some doubts and observations relating to the supposed 

 fossil Didelphis found at Stonesfield ; in which observations 

 my object was rather to draw the attention of English na- 

 turalists to a matter of such great importance in palaeontology, 

 and to show how questions of this nature ought to be treated, 

 than really to solve the problem, deprived as I was of the ne- 

 cessary elements for so doing. After having indeed set forth 

 and compared the data that I was able to advance as premi- 

 ses in the question, and which data necessarily became the 

 special subject of the discussion, I arrived at the conclusion 

 that the fossil jaws from the oolitic schist of Stonesfield had 

 certainly not belonged to an animal of the marsupial subclass, 

 nor even to the family of the Insectivora of the placental sub- 

 class; and that hence it became probable that it was 

 not even a mammal, but rather an oviparous animal of 

 the family of the saurians, in the class Reptilia. But before 

 giving a definite character to these conclusions, I was very 

 careful to mention to you that I had not examined any one 



1 ' Nouveaux Doutes sur le pretendu Didelphe de Stonesfield ; (Comptes 

 Rendus,' October 6th, 1838, p. 727) 

 Vol. III.— No. 26, n. s. r 



