On the Muscle in the Eyes of Fishes. 553 



Portland stone of the said country, belong, without doubt, 

 to Mammalia, and partly to the species only known in the 

 tertiary formation. Still it remains to be shown that these 

 remains of Mammalia have really been found in the solid 

 banks of the Portland stone. Nevertheless, the nature of 

 the masses which surround these remains, and the place in 

 which they are situated, seem to prove that these Mammalia 

 have been probably surrounded later by the dissolved Port- 

 land stone. We find in the Portland stone of the Jura moun- 

 tains of Switzerland, and in some other places in Germany, 

 especially in the Kahlenberg, teeth of a blunted conical form, 

 dense and striped, belonging to the saurian which I designate 

 Machino Saurius Hugii, it is characteristic of the said for- 

 mations. 



(To be Continued.) 



Art. VI. — Reply to Mr. Dalrymple " On an undescribed Muscle in 

 the Eyes of Fishes." By Dr. W. C. Wallace, Oculist. 



In the ' Magazine of Natural History ' for March last, Mr. 

 Dalrymple states that some years ago he observed a small 

 grey-coloured body attached to the lens of a pike, and that 

 "the preparations then made were exhibited to some young 

 American gentlemen attending the practice of the Moorfields 

 Ophthalmic Hospital." 



As an account of a similar body had been published in 

 6 Silliman's Journal,' Mr. Dalrymple further states, — " From 

 the circumstance of my not being being aware of being per- 

 sonally acquainted with Mr. Wallace, / cannot help suspect- 

 ing that he is one of the Americans to whom the observations 

 made by me were imparted at the Ophthalmic Hospital some 

 years ago." 



I am not an American, therefore the gentlemen thus round- 

 ly accused are fully exculpated. As there was nothing on 

 the subject in Mr. Dalrymple's book, a copy of my paper was 

 forwarded to him soon after his publication appeared. If dis- 

 posed to deviate so far from candour and courtesy as he has 

 done, I might say, with far more plausibility, / cannot help 

 suspecting that he is one of those to whom the observations 

 made by me were imparted through the medium of i Silli- 

 man's Journal ' in 1834, and now published as his own in 

 the 'Magazine of Natural History' in 1838. 



In my paper I gave the following quotation, translated 

 from Cuvier. " In a great number of fishes there is a falci- 



