173 
but it is because we have viewed the same facts in a 
light which seems to warrant us in drawing conclusions 
from them which may tend to combine the opinions of 
the two best authors upon the subject. The situation 
of the genus in a natural series is neatly pointed out by 
M. de Blainville; but the sections of the genus, at least 
the three first by him, and the separation of Actinoca- 
max by Mr. Miller, are ill-founded, as will be shown 
hereafter. M. de Blainville places the genus Beloptera 
immediately after Sepia, next Belemnites, then Ortho- 
cera,—so commencing the long series of chambered 
shells, all of which are supposed to belong to cephalo- 
podous Mollusce. 
The genus Argonauta has long been included in the 
same series; but it by no means appears in its natural 
situation, and spoils the harmony, in whatever part it be 
introduced: it is in fact much nearer related to Carinaria. 
The question respecting the Ocythoé that is found in it, 
being a parasite or not, is still undecided; and we must 
be cautious when contemplating it, to avoid being led 
by the supposed analogy the shell bears to Nautilus,— 
an analogy which holds little further than in the name. 
The fact that there is no surface of attachment between 
the animal found in it and the shell, that the animal is 
sometimes placed with the rectum over the beak of the 
shell and sometimes in the opposite direction, joined with 
the facility of quitting the shell the animal shows when 
captured, strongly favour the idea of its being a parasite ; 
and when we contemplate the irregular form and size 
of the apex of the spire, we are led to conclude that the 
egg of the animal proper to the shell, must have been 
