116 Analysis of Scientific Books. 
upon fossil shells, inhabitants of the sea and similar objects, the 
natives of fresh water. That also in matter of experience, and of that 
only ; and of the past, the so long past, there can be none, There is 
no character by which these can be recognised : it is not to be found 
in their tenderness, or the reverse, as once imagined. Itis not found 
in generic characters, because there are species in one genus, some of 
which are inhabitants of the sea, and some of lakes and rivers, just as 
much as there is a sea eel anda rivereel; a Murena anguilla and a 
Mureena conger. Indeed with respect to the shell fishes, Mons. 
Freminville has lately shown that sea and fresh water kinds all live 
together in the same place. But we need not pursue this point fur- 
ther, and shall return with Mons. Blainville to his next geolosical 
division, the ichthyolites of what he calls the ** Calcaire compacte.” 
As his method of division is geological, we think it would have been 
as wellif he had satisfied his readers first of the propriety of his geo- 
logical arrangements. ‘ Calcaire compacte” may mean a great deal. 
The geological characters of the former strata, were merely doubtful: 
those of the present cannot possibly be right. The first locality, for 
example, is Granmont, situated at four leagues frem Beaune in Bur- 
gundy ; and the rock is the “ calcaire ancienne, contenant des gryphites 
et des belemnites,” which is “ situé audessus du gres rouge, et que 
V’on croit presque aussi ancien que celui du Jura.” The next is 
Italy, where, without any other evidence than the colour and look 
of the detached stone, one is decided to belong to the Apennine lime- 
stone; we have no hesitation in admitting that some of them actually 
do so. 
If “ calcaire compacte” is to comprise such rocks as these, and if 
it is thus to be considered as one geological formation, we ought to 
have been furnished with more accurate geological information res- 
pecting them, that we might have judged of the propriety of this 
arrangement. If there is any object in dividing the ichthyolites accord- 
ing to the strata in which they are found, it is for the purpose of 
inquiring into the somewhat interesting question of their relative 
antiquity. This is what Cuvier has properly done with respect to the 
Paris district ; and Mons. Blainville, while he was about it, might as 
‘well have imitated him in that too, had he not been solely occupied on 
fish bones, thinking, doubtless, ‘*in tenui labor at non tenuis gloria.” 
But we must inquire about the Ichthyolites themselves, 
There is first a new Elops, the macropterus, from Granmont, 
which may or may not be an Elops; and then there is another 
called incognitus, imbedded in a ‘pierre calcaire dure, assez com- 
pacte, grise, et formant une sorte de noyau dont j’ignore la loealité et 
le gissement.” ‘This is not a very accurate geological arrangement at 
any rate. The fish of Italy are left pretty nearly as they were found, 
but our author takes, or makes, an opportunity of cutting off Brieslak’s 
head with a golden hatchet. We cannot pardon Brieslak any more 
than M, Blainville, because he has a troublesome way of thinking for 
