64 
true “ Coprolites” of Lyme Regis, from a two-fold motive: Ist, from 
the pleasant recollections of former years, when, in Suffolk, he first 
became acquainted with Mr. Charlesworth, then a zealous student, 
observer, and worker in geology, which he had made, with kindred 
subjects, the pursuit of his life, while with himself it was but as an 
amateur that he paid attention to geology ; 2ndly, becauseit had been 
brought before the notice of the Society and the public upon two or 
three occasions, when, in his opinion, there had been misinterpretation 
of the views of the original introducer of the subject, and because he 
considered the opinions express: by eminent geologists, at times 
referred to as antagonistic to Mr. Charlesworth’s views, did not 
warrant the interpretation put upon them. 
Referring to the discovery by Henslow of the “ phosphatic 
nodules” of Felixtow, Suffolk, and believed by him to be identical 
in composition with those of Lyme Regis, he remarked that among 
those who shared this belief was Packard, of Ipswich, who, learning, 
when he was residing at Cambridge, that “a so-called coprolitic 
deposit” had been discovered in the greensand, communicated with 
him, and eventually embarked in an extensive speculation, profitable 
to himself and to agriculturists ; the yield of phosphatic matter being 
270 tons per acre and worth 50s. a ton. Hewould remind them that, 
in March, their Honorary Secretary had exhibited “ coprolitic and 
other organic remains from the coprolitic beds at Cambridge.” He 
was not present, but at the next meeting he asked Mr. Wonfor 
“Whether he interpreted the word Coprolite, as applied to the 
substances in question, to mean literally what the term implied, 
viz., the foeces or dung of animals?” The reply was, “‘ If taken literally, 
most certainly.” He then took exception to the statement “that all 
the leading geologists of the day proclaimed them to be of the 
coprolitic origin.” It was then suggested he should read a paper 
on the subject. 
Reference was then made to Mr. Scott’s (the President) paper on 
‘* Suffolk Tertiaries,” upon which occasion Mr. Charlesworth asserted 
that the nodules of Cambridge and Suffolk were unlike the true copro- 
lites of Lyme Regis, being mere stones, whose formation was similar 
to that of the chalk flints. Exception was next taken to the deduc- 
tions drawn from the papers read before the Geological Society by the 
Rey. O. Fisher, on Phosphatic Nodules of the Cretaceous Rock of 
Cambridgeshire, and by Mr. Sollas on the Upper Greensand Forma- 
tion of the same County, and the opinions expressed by Professor 
Phillips, Mr. Godwin Austin, the Rev. T. G. Bonney, Professor 
Morris, Mr. T. J. Walker, and Mr. Forbes, gentlemen of high 
