10 BRITISH FOSSILS. 



and Bronn (Letho>a, dritte Aufla<re, Bd. II., 1851-2) increased the 

 confusion which had already spread over the subject, by following 

 Qnenstedt in his scepticism respecting the truly Belemnitoid character 

 of Belemnoteuthis, and by referring the Belemnosepia of Buckland to 

 the family of the Loligidce and the genus Belopeltis. At least he 

 does this at p. 407 of the work cited, while at p. 385 lie seems to 

 entertain a, different opinion : 



" The animal of the Belemnite is perfectly unknown ; what Buckland, 

 Agassiz, and R. Owen say of it must be referred to Belcmnoteuthis, 

 which only on account of accidental juxtaposition has been taken for 

 a part of a Belemnite. Of an ink-bag also no trace is ever seen." 



That the specimens described by Professor Owen as the animals of 

 the Belemnite are Belemnoteuthes, as Pearce, Cunnington. and Mantel! 

 demonstrated, admits of no doubt, and has since been acknowledged 

 by Mr. Owen ("Palaeontology," p. 113), and that Agassiz was in error 

 in identifying Von Zieten's Onychoteuthis prisca with a Belem- 

 nite, also seems to be clear ; but Buckland is in a totally different 

 position, and it will be seen that his interpretation of the Lyme Regis 

 specimens was in the main correct. 



Of the pro-ostracum (hornige Dute) Bronn says that " it has never 

 " been found entire, and rarely in a substantive form, but its compo- 

 " sition must be judged by combining fragments and their lines of 

 " growth." In fact he essentially adopts Voltz's view of its structure 

 and extent. 



Professor Quenstedt's final opinions appear to be stated in his 



" Handbuch der Petrefakten-kunde " (1852). After describing the cono- 



thecal lines, he says (p. 385), " It is but rarely that all these markings 



" are distinctly visible, and especially they do not agree with those on the 



" pen (schulpe) of the parabolic Loliginites, as was for some time wrongly 



" asserted, and as some still maintain. On the other hand, they indicate 



" the end of the couotheca (alveolarschale), as k has long been known 



" from Solenhofen, and has been lately figured by Mantell, also from 



" the Oxford clay at Trowbridge in Wiltshire (Philosophical Trans- 



" actions, 1848). From two corresponding specimens, which I have 



" lately obtained from Soleuhofen, the fig. 13 of plate 31 is constructed of 



half the natural size. The conotheca (A) is chambered up to its upper 



part, but when the chambers cease, the lip also ends upon the ventral 



side, as it seems by a horizontal boundary, which would answer to 



the horizontal lines, b, upon the conotheca of B. giganteus. Dorsally, 



on the contrary, a high parabolic shield extends, at the edges of which 



" two sometimes deeply coloured bands, h,h, are clearly perceived, and 



" end in points like sharp ears superiorly. These are the hyperbolar 



" regions, which, where they bend down below from the margin, have 



" quite the same curvature as in Belemnites giganteus. Between these 



" horns lies the region of the dorsal curves, a,a, with a median line 



" r, in which the lines of growth are plainly curved upwards, just as 



" the free margin of the shield is." 



Professor Quenstedt's observations thus clearly confirm those of 

 Mantell, and go to prove that some Belemuites have a two-ribbed pro-os- 

 tracum ; but he is, as we shall see, in error in supposing that all 

 Belemnites have a pro-ostracum like that of his specimens ; and still 

 more in his assumption (p. 333) that Belemnoteuthis has no phrag- 

 mocoue. and is not one of the BelemnitidcB, but an Onychoteutln*. 



Professor Pictet (" Traite de Paleontologie, "1854), follows d'Orbigny 

 (or rather Voltz,) as to the pro-ostracum of Belemnites, and with Bronn 

 separates Belemnosepia from the Bclcmnitidfr, Avhile. on the other 



