AMPHITHERITJM. 31 



inquiry, first in regard to the geological relations of the 

 alleged oolitic stratum, and next, as to the true zoological 

 affinities of the fossils. 



The first exception to a generalization that has assumed 

 the character of a law is always admitted with difficulty, 

 and, by a rigid systematist, with reluctance. The geo- 

 logical arguments by which M. Prevost endeavoured to 

 invalidate the conclusions of Dr. Buckland, as to the re- 

 lative position of the Stonesfield slate, were soon and satis- 

 factorily rebutted by Dr. Fitton ; the antiquity of the 

 oolitic masses could not be diminished to correspond with 

 the presumed exclusive Mammalian epoch, the mountain 

 refused to move to Mahomet, and the question as to the 

 real age of the rock containing the alleged marsupial fossils 

 has not since been agitated. The attempts to do away 

 with the anomalous exception, by interpreting the cha- 

 racters of the fossil jaws as indications of an extinct species 

 of reptile, or other cold-blooded oviparous animal, have 

 been more frequent and persevering ; and they assumed 

 the appearance of so systematic a refutation of the Cuvi- 

 erian view, in the memoirs communicated by M. de Blain- 

 ville to the French Academy, in the year 1838, that a close 

 and thorough reexamination and comparison of the fossils 

 in question seemed to be imperatively called for, in order 

 that the validity of the doubts cast upon their Mammalian 

 nature might be fully and rigorously tested. 



By a very singular coincidence the fossil ' bones of 

 contention,' from the Stonesfield slate, are ah 1 of them 

 portions of the lower jaw ; whether belonging to individuals 

 of different species, or of different genera, or even, as appears 

 by examination of new specimens acquired since the publica- 

 tion of Professor de Blainville's and my own memoirs of 

 1838, of different orders of Mammalia. 



