AMPHITHERIUM. 35 



conductor of the English Journal called the ' Athenaeum, 1 

 has already laid before his readers the point under discus- 

 sion, having no doubt but that there will soon be discovered, 

 in the Stonesfield quarries, some fragment that will be 

 sufficiently demonstrative ; and, in the mean time, he him- 

 self proposes, to avoid, he says, being accused of partiality 

 towards either of the three already proposed, the name 

 Botheratiotherium for the supposed Didelphys of the Oolite ; 

 so that Science is already embarrassed with four or five 

 denominations for an animal, of which our knowledge is 

 most imperfect ; since, by one party it is referred to the 

 Mammalia, by another to the insectivorous Monodelphs, or 

 to the Amphibia ; and by a third to the Didelphs allied to 

 the opossums, or to a genus representing the seals, in the 

 sub-class of Marsupialia ; whilst others make a Saurian, 

 or even a Fish of it ; which, it may be remarked en 

 passant, appears much more in accordance with the age 

 and the geological character of the formation which contains 

 the fossils in question, as well as with the organized bodies 

 with which they are associated." 



This was an unlooked-for result of the journey to Paris, 

 undertaken by Dr. Buckland for the purpose of affording 

 the Comparative Anatomists of that celebrated school of 

 Natural History and Palaeontology the opportunity of 

 studying, not only the original fossil examined by Cuvier, 

 but the second and more perfect jaw from the same ancient 

 Oolitic stratum. 



The final judgment of M. de Blainville met with appro- 

 bation and support from the stricter systematists, since 

 it harmonized with their preconceived opinions on the pro- 

 gressive appearance of organized forms on this planet. It 

 seemed to afford a striking example of the alleged inefficacy 

 of the Cuvierian principle of interpretation of organic re- 



D2 



