286 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
This fossil was transferred to the British Museum from the Museum 
of Practical Geology in 1880, with a label belonging to that Museum 
bearing the inscription ‘‘ Oolitic: Niti Pass. Ammonites Nepalensis. 
Coll. by Col. Strachey.’ This last statement is erroneous; the fossil 
could not have been collected by Colonel Strachey, because the specimen 
is figured in Gray’s work, which is dated 1830-32, whereas Colonel 
Strachey’s specimens were not obtained until the years 1848 and 1849.! 
The Paleozoic and Secondary fossils collected by Strachey were 
described, the former by J. W. Salter and the latter by H. F. Blanford, 
in 1865, in a work the title-page of which reads as follows:— 
‘‘ Paleontology of Niti in the Northern Himalaya: being descriptions 
and figures ce the Paleozoic and Secondary Fossils allectau by 
Colonel Richard Strachey, R.E. Descriptions by J. W. Salter, F.G.S., 
A.L.S , and H. F. Bl: anford, A.R.S.M., F.G.S. Reprinted with slight 
corrections for private circulation from Colonel R. Strachey’s forth- 
coming work? on the Physical Geography of the Northern Himalaya. 
Caleutta: O. T. Cutter, Military Orphan Press, March, 1865.” All 
the plates are marked vol. 11, and are numbered from 1 to 23. 
In the copies of this work that are in the libraries of the Geological 
Department of the British Museum, of the Geological Society of 
London, and of the Museum of Practical Geology respectively, the first 
nine plates are photographs of engraved plates, whilst the rest (10-23) 
were lithographed and printed in Calcutta. It would thus seem that 
this was the manner in which the plates were issued with the work. 
But the library of the Geological Department of the British Museum 
also contains a set of plates, presented by Sir Richard Strachey in 1892. 
The first nine are engraved, and it is evident that it was from precisely 
similar imprints that ‘the photographs issued with the work were taken ; 
plates x—xili, xvi-xvill, and xxi—xxill were drawn and lithographed 
Dy Wi-a Et. Baily, the others, xix and xx, by C. R. Bone; and they 
were all printed by Ford & West, evidently in England. The two 
sets of plates present, in the drawing of the specimens, sufficient 
differences to show that the ‘ English’ set was not copied from the 
‘Indian,’ but that most of the figures, at any rate, were re-drawn 
from the actual specimens, additional details being given in several 
instances.’ General Sir Richard Strachey informs me that the 
‘English’ set of plates has never been ‘‘ formally published,”’ so far 
as he knows—‘‘ certainly not in England.” 
In that work Blanford figured an example of Ammonites Nepaulensis 
(pl. xiv, figs. la, 6), and at first sight one is scarcely prepared to 
regard this specimen as one of the examples figured by Gray, but 
a close examination leads us to believe that it is the example represented 
in Gray’s fig. 1. 
In Blanford’s figures, which are reversed, the piece of matrix still 
remaining at the aperture of the shell is not shown, and the injured 
1 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. vii (1851), p. 294. 
2 This work was never published. 
3 Compare, for example, in the two sets, pl. xi, figs. le, 2¢; pl. xui, fig. la; 
pl. xv, fig. la; pl. xvi, figs. la, 2a; pl. xvii, figs. 2a, b; pl. xxi, fig. 1d. 
