78 Mr. Toulmin Smith on the Ventriculidse 



figured and described, p. 45. pi. 72. figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, but with 

 no fresh information. 



The Ventriculidse were justly considered by Conybeare and 

 Phillips so interesting and remarkable that a larger proportionate 

 space is devoted to their description in the well-known f Outlines 

 of Geology ' (1822) than to any other fossil, and they are the 

 only fossils figured throughout their volume (p. 76). They only 

 however abridge the description given in Dr. MantelFs paper, 

 suggesting, however, that they were composite instead of single 

 animals as described by the latter. 



In Goldfuss' s ' Petrefacta ' (1826) there are given, under still 

 new names, figures which appear to represent some of the Ven- 

 triculidse. I think it quite clear however that the two forms 

 which alone are referred to in Mr. Morris's ' Catalogue ' as figured 

 by Goldfuss (quadratics and radiatus i pi. 33. fig. 1, and 65. 

 fig. 7) are not figures of any of the family of Ventriculidse . 

 Goldfuss himself (p. 243) refers the genus Ventriculites to his 

 genus Scyphia, though it is clear one of his Coscinopora is a Ven- 

 triculite also. 



It appears to me that the following figures in Goldfuss repre- 

 sent forms of Ventriculidse ; but there is nothing in the descrip- 

 tions which enables us to identify them : tab. 2. figs. 8, 9, 10, 1 1, 

 12, and perhaps 15 and 16 ; tab. 3. figs. 1 and 5 ; tab. 30. fig. 10; 

 and perhaps tab. 32. figs. 3 and 8. It is to be observed however 

 with respect to all these figures, that they are too imperfect to 

 enable me to speak with absolute confidence of any one. It is 

 certain that he has no figure of any one of the most characteristic 

 forms of Ventriculidse. And this is not the less the case though 

 he professes to give magnified views of some of the structure ; 

 those magnified views themselves exhibiting, without exception, 

 want of accurate observation, and so being calculated to mislead 

 rather than aid the inquirer. 



Mr. Rose published in vol. ii. of the ' Mag. of Nat. Hist/ (1829) 

 a paper " On the Anatomy of the Ventriculites of Mantell," in 

 which he professes to detail the intimate anatomical structure of 

 those fossils, and accompanies his descriptions with figures. The 

 figures however, which are in wood, are not such as to convey 

 any correct or clear idea of the originals, while the whole paper 

 certainly does not elucidate the structure further than had been 

 done by Dr. Mantell*. The writer considers them single animals 

 like the jtcnnia. 



* I had proposed briefly pointing out the cause of the essential errors into 

 which Mr. Rose has fallen, but my limits prevent (see note ante, p. 75). The 

 course which I subsequently show to be absolutely necessary to the investi- 

 gation of these bodies is the best explanation of the imperfect and erroneous 

 notions hitherto prevailing in regard to them. 



