M. Blainville on Ichthyolites. 117 
himself, and of professing that he does not understand the mystical 
language in which the French geognosts shroud their oracles :— 
‘¢ Brieslak fait l’observation, qui nia été confirmée par Mons. Menard 
de la Groye, que on ne trouve dans cette localité qu’ une seule espece 
de poisson fossile, que l’on regardé 4 Naples, et méme parmi les savans, 
comme analogue du sparus quatracinus, appelé dans cette ville, spara- 
glioni. | Comme l’observateur dont je viens de parler, en homme qui 
sait agir dans ces sortes de recherches, a raporté 4 la fois ce fossile et 
Panalogue présumé, j'ai pu, grace asa complaisance, m’assurer que ce 
rapprochement est tout-a-fait erroné. En effet, le poisson fossile me 
paroit appartenir au genre Zee, ou a l'une des subdivisions qu’ y a 
introduites Mons. La Cépede; aussi la hauteur de son corps surpasse 
Ja moitié de sa longueur, tandis que, dans le sparus quatracinus, elle 
est environ le tiers.” So much for Breislak and his sparaglioni. 
The next geological formation is the chalk, which includes Brussels, 
Maestricht, Paris, and Perigueux. The first ichthyolite mentioned 
affords a good specimen of ichthyolitologistical reasoning. | M. Bur- 
tin begins by giving ‘‘des figures assez bonnes.’”’ —M. Blainville “ n’ 
en apas vu lui meme,” therefore it is, first ‘* Zeus auratus?” “ que je 
croirois volontiers du genre Pleuronecte, et peut etre la Barbue, ou 
mieux encore le poisson de St. Pierre.” John Dory after all. But 
then M. Burtin, who has drawn this very “‘ figure assez bonne,” sees 
fins, and ears, and sculls, and jaws, and teeth, and orbits, and clavicles, 
and scapula, and vertebree; while M. Blainville sees ‘‘ rien de tout 
cela dans la figure.” And then M. Burtin “ veut je ne sais trop pour= 
quoi,” that this isa Chtodon. But enough of the chalk formation. 
There is more of the same kind of useful information respecting the 
“ formation du Calcaire grossier, infériéur au gypse.” Cuvier seems 
to have been too wise to attempt it, and we shall spare our readers 
the sparus that may be a labrus. | 
_ Then succeeds an account of the fishes of Pappenheim, but we 
cannot afford to enter on the details in the same manner. The only 
remark we shall indulge ourselves in making, is, that in describing 
five species in the genus clupea, which seems a particular favourite 
with our author, he has borrowed from Knorr’s figures, instead of 
consulting the specimens themselves. Thus the probabilities in favour 
of truth are, that, in the first place, Knorr himself is correct; next, 
that his painter has figured impressions of fish bones so accurately, 
when the value of the subject was not understood, as to enable M. 
Blainville to determine different species of clupea, and the genus itself 
from them; and, lastly, that the author has no favourite system res- 
pecting his genera, the contrary of which is evinced in every page of 
his work. ‘The proof of this latter is, that all the figures which do 
not chance to suit the fashion of the moment, are pronounced bad; 
and that when they happen to suitit, they serve the purpose, with 
him, of demonstrating what such figures are totally incapable of 
proving, 
