80 Mr. Toulmin Smith on the Ventriculidse 



with confidence on particular figures. All are described under 

 the name of Scyphia. The nearest forms are perhaps tab. 3. 

 figs. 2, 9, 11, and tab. 4. fig. 1, but others are probably intended 

 for these objects. 



In Portlock's ' Report on the Geology of Londonderry ' (1843) 

 are contained descriptions, but no figures, of Ventriculites radiatus 

 of Mantell, and Scyphia alternans of Roemer (tab. 3. fig. 9), and 

 also of the one figured by Goldfuss (pi. 30. fig. 10) as Coscino- 

 pora infundibuliformis; but this writer does no more in effect 

 than repeat the descriptions given by former authors. 



Michelin, in his ) Iconographie Zoophytologique' (1843-7), has 

 figured (pi. 30.) and described (p. 121) under the name of Guet- 

 tardia, a variety of the Ventriculite already figured by Dr. Man- 

 tell (South Downs, tab. 15. fig. 6) under the far more character- 

 istic name of V. quadrangular is. 



On pi. 38. fig. 3 of the same work is a very imperfect figure* 

 of Ventriculites Bennettia. On pi. 41. fig. 3 is a far better figure 

 than had before been given of the so-called " Ocellaria nuda ;" 

 while on pi. 40. figs. 3 a and 3 b are figures of what he calls Ocel- 

 laria grandipora, being really a very different species of Ventri- 

 culite from the other so-called Ocellaria. These figures admirably 

 represent the original as it appears when first broken out of the 

 flint. The description (p. 145) contains however, in this as 

 in other cases, nothing new. On pi. 40. fig. 4 a, 4 b, is also re- 

 presented, under the name of Retepora crassa, another form of 

 Ventriculite. 



In ' Die Versteinerungen der Bohmischen Kreideformation ' 

 of Reuss (1846) no new details are given, while the figures 

 (tab. 17. fig. 14, and tab. 18. fig. 11) are remarkable, in a work 

 marked by the general beauty and correctness of its figures, for 

 the want of any character or truthfulness whatever. 



Such are the notices of this very interesting class of bodies 

 which I have met with. Doubtless others may exist in works 

 which have not fallen into my hands. The above will satisfy 

 every reader that all that has been done by recent palaeontologists 

 has been to copy from one another. It is important to observe 

 that in none of the figures or descriptions which I have cited 

 does there exist the slightest indication of what I shall show to 

 be the actual structure of these remarkable bodies, and without 

 an insight into which all attempts at classifying them and deter- 

 mining their affinities must necessarily be uncertain and unsa- 

 tisfactory and a true knowledge of their natural history impos- 

 sible. Dr. Mantell is, indeed, the only author who has presented 



* Probably a mere copy,— for Michelin 's plates are usually very good and 

 characteristic. 



