AMPHITHERIUM. 35 
conductor of the English Journal called the ‘ Atheneum,’ 
has already laid before his readers the point under discus- 
sion, having no doubt but that there will soon be discovered, 
in the Stonesfield quarries, some fragment that will be 
sufficiently demonstrative ; and, in the mean time, he him- 
self proposes, to avoid, he says, being accused of partiality 
towards either of the three already proposed,—the name 
Botheratiotherium for the supposed Didelphys of the Oolite ; 
so that Science is already embarrassed with four or five 
denominations for an animal, of which our knowledge is 
most imperfect ; since, by one party it is referred to the 
Mammalia, by another to the insectivorous Monodelphs, or 
to the Amphibia ; and by a third to the Didelphs allied to 
the opossums, or to a genus representing the seals, in the 
sub-class of Marsupialia ; whilst others make a Saurian, 
or even a Fish of it; which, it may be remarked en 
passant, appears much more in accordance with the age 
and the geological character of the formation which contains 
the fossils in question, as well as with the organized bodies 
with which they are associated.” 
This was an unlooked-for result of the journey to Paris, 
undertaken by Dr. Buckland for the purpose of affording 
the Comparative Anatomists of that celebrated school of 
Natural History and Paleontology the opportunity of 
studying, not only the original fossil examined by Cuvier, 
but the second and more perfect jaw from the same ancient 
Oolitic stratum. 
The final judgment of M. de Blainville met with appro- 
bation and support from the stricter systematists, since 
it harmonized with their preconceived opinions on the pro- 
gressive appearance of organized forms on this planet. It 
seemed to afford a striking example of the alleged inefficacy 
of the Cuvierian principle of interpretation of organic re- 
D2 
