65 
geolog:,al status, said to favour the Coprolite theory, but whose ex- 
pressed opinions did not, he thought, bear out the interpretation put 
on them. In opposition, and as bearing out Mr. Charlesworth’s 
views, Mr. Scott, Mr. J. E. Taylor, Author of “ Geological Stories,” 
Mr, Secley, and Mr. Packhard, were quoted. The last-mentioned 
had not only sent the specimens on the table, but had written “ The 
Phosphatic deposits of the greensand differ from those of Lyme Regis. 
I quite believe coprolites, or dung stones, is an improper name for all 
these phosphates except Lyme Regis, where you may see it in the 
bodies of what were once living animals and afterwards fossilized ; but 
Suffolk crag or greensand deposits are mere bones. Within the last 
four years some remarkable discoveries had been made in the south 
of France. The phosphate occurs there in massive rocks and débris, 
in the interstices of the limestone rocks.” 
He was induced to refer to this statement, as it indicated a possible 
source other than Coprolite for the production of phosphatic sub- 
stances. After alluding to the discoveries by Buckland and Henslow 
of the Lyme Regis and Suffolk deposits, he next compared the two 
kinds. The true were spirally twisted, corrugated, and contained 
scales of fishes and sometimes bones and teeth. The “so-called” 
were round, cylindrical, pyriform, &c., but more commonly amorphous. 
Sections of the true showed scales, teeth, &c., while the “ so-called” 
were homogeneous and without scales. 
There was no doubt of the origin of the “ true,” but another for.the 
“so-called” must be sought. Not only the rocks mentioned by Mr. 
Packard, but many others, contained apatite, or native phosphorite of 
lime,—a substance so rich in phosphate as to contain from 85 to 87 
percent. As this substance so abounded in rocks of the present day, — 
it was but reasonable analogy to infer its existence when these 
“nodules” were formed, and to assign their formation to this cause 
rather than to the coprolitic. He considered, as Mr. Charlesworth had . 
asserted, their origin bore a great similarity to that of flints. A flint 
was said to be formed by a chemical process,—might not these be 
similarly formed, phosphoric acid supplying the place of the silica of 
the flint formation? The verdict as to whether Mr. Charlesworth’s two 
propositions were right or wrong he left in their hands. 
After a cordial vote of thanks to Mr. Sewell for his paper, and ten 
minutes devoted to an examination of the specimens and diagrams, 
Mr. WONFOR, opening the discussion, remarked that he never 
_ claimed all phosphatic nodules as Coprolites in the exact sense of the 
_ term, but contended that they were all of an organic origin, in con- 
