70 REPORT 1880. 



elusive upon the mode of reproduction of the Ichthyosaurus. Mr. Charles 

 Moore has examined the specimen and is doubtful as to the inference that 

 should be drawn from it. These are the only British specimens which 

 bear upon the mode of reproduction in Ichthyosaurs. 



I am aware that it may be fallacious to reason from the structures 

 of living reptiles back to the nature of soft parts in an Ichthyosaurus ; 

 but in the alligator, which is also a carnivorous animal, the contents 

 of the stomach remain there till perfectly dissolved, and in a specimen 

 11 feet long, the pyloric aperture was only about an inch in diameter, and 

 defended with two valvular constrictions, so that, supposing the Ich- 

 thyosaurs to have preyed on their own species, and to have swallowed their 

 prey head first, after the manner of snakes, there is an a priori impro- 

 bability that the young animal would have got farther than the stomach, 

 which in alligators is placed well forward, and is not unduly large. More- 

 over, I see no reason to doubt that the substances from the Lias of the South 

 of England which are well known as Ichthyosaurian coprolites have been 

 correctly determined. They consist of well-digested materials, and 

 sometimes contain the scales of ganoid fishes, and hooks of cuttles, such 

 as are met with in the stomachic region of many individual Ichthyosaurs. 

 I have elsewhere taken occasion to point out that the spiral structure 

 which these coprolites display indicates that there was, anterior to the 

 rectum, a smaller intestine of the calibre of the coil which is wound into 

 the coprolite ; ' and it is obviously impossible, even if the young specimen 

 could have passed the stomach uninjured, for it to have passed uninjured 

 down such a small tube, so that the snout should project from the body 

 in the way which Dr. Chaning Pearce has described. 



Unfortunately Dr. Chaning Pearce did not give a figure of his 

 specimen, and so the discovery missed alike recognition and recollection. 

 I lost sight of the specimen until last year, when I learned that it had 

 been removed to Brixton, and with the rest of the collection it was shown 

 to me by Dr. Joseph Chaning Pearce, F.G.S. But whether pyrites in it 

 had decayed, or whether it had suffered in the lapse of years from cleaning 

 and removal, the fact remains that the young specimen is gone. The ques- 

 tion here ends in a cul-de-sac, so far as the English evidence is concerned. 



An interesting Ichthyosanr in the Royal Museum at Stuttgart, to 

 which my attention was drawn by Dr. Oscar Fraas, in August, 1878, 

 would appear to have been the original of a figure by Dr. G. F. von Jaeger, 

 published in 1824, in his work ' De Ichthyosauri sive Proteosauri, &c.,' 

 which I have hitherto been unable to see. 



It is certainly the original of a very rough figure, Tab. I. fig. 4, pro- 

 bably the same plate, given by Dr. von Jaeger in his work, ' Ueber fossile 

 Reptilien welche in Wiirtemberg aufgefunden worden sind,' published 

 at Stuttgart, in 1828. But although the young animal is figured as lying 

 in the abdominal cavity of the large individual, the author does not even 

 refer to its remarkable position, and confines his observations to an account 

 of the structure of the genus, and an endeavour to determine the species. 

 And it was not till Dr. Chaning Pearce's note became known in Germany 

 that attention was awakened to the bearing of this and of some similar 

 specimens. 



Other writings of Dr. Jaeger contain evidences of his renewed interest 

 in this subject, for in the 'Nova Acta Ces. Leop. Car.' vol. xxv. pt. 3. p. 961, 



' Index to fossil Remains o/Aves, Ornit/wsauria, lieritilia, ^'c, p. 131, 8vo. 

 1869. 



