242 W. H. Hudleston—The Yorkshire Oolite. 
ficures, showing that collections were by no means deficient in good 
specimens, the neighbourhood of Malton then, as subsequently, 
furnishing a considerable proportion. ‘The frontispiece, intended to 
represent part of a Glyphea, so common in the Lower Calcareous 
Grit of Appleton, is, perhaps, one of the quaintest figures in any 
paleontological work of the present century, butin the other figures 
there is nothing grotesque whatever. 
The attention of Sowerby, who was at that time bringing out the 
Mineral Conchology, seems to have been drawn by this work to the 
Oolitic fossils of East Yorkshire, as we find the Scarborough 
Catalogue mentioned in vol. ii. p. 128, with reference to the so-called 
Unio Listeri, and again, in vol. i. p. 45, where Sowerby describes 
Mya? literata from a Yorkshire specimen, and refers to the figure 
in the Scarborough Catalogue (t. ii. fig. 1), which is certainly much 
better than his own. From time to time Sowerby continued to 
figure and describe fossils from the Yorkshire Oolites, which have 
thus contributed a certain proportion of his types. 
In the year 1822 appeared the first edition of Young and Bird’s 
Geology of the Yorkshire Coast, which was the second serious 
attempt to describe and figure a portion of the Jurassic fossils of East - 
Yorkshire, but on a far more extensive scale than in the Scarborough 
Catalogue. The figures of these authors are, perhaps, better than 
their names and descriptions, as they were far too much disposed to 
refer the specimens to existing genera, and had little idea of geo- 
logical sequence. Their criticisms of some parts of Mr. Sowerby’s 
work drew down the indignation of his relative, who observed, Min. 
Conch. vol. iv. p. 146, that “the late Mr. Sowerby’s veracity and 
credit needed no defence against the attacks and false surmises of 
the arrogant.” This arose out of a squabble about the identification 
of some Ammonites. Previously, viz. at p. 112, Sowerby had 
complained that these authors improperly confounded Plagiostoma 
rigidum with a totally distinct species from Malton, which he named 
P. leviusculum, and also that they “indulged themselves in changing 
names, and several other liberties too palpably induced by error to 
merit particular notice.” 
On the whole, Young and Bird’s work is interesting rather than 
valuable in a paleontological sense ; their figures are recognizable 
and even characteristic in many instances, so that rather than give a 
new name, it would be preferable to take one from them. In their 
second edition (1828), unfortunately, some of the guesses of the first 
edition are reversed, and the same shell is placed under another 
genus, and with a fresh specific name. Additional fossils are figured, 
and the original figures, in some cases, by no means improved. 
Such was the state of mineral conchology in Hast Yorkshire— 
paleontology it could hardly be called—when Phillips appeared on 
the scene in 1829, and applied the principles of geological science to 
the fine mass of material which was waiting for some master-hand 
to reduce it to order. That he was most successful none will deny, 
and the editions of his Geology of Yorkshire of 1829 and 1835 must 
be deemed a wonderful step in advance of anything that had been 
