Prof.H. G. Seeley — On Vogt's Vieio of the Archceopteryx. 301 



duty, to differ from liira emphatically in the philosophical conclu- 

 sions drawn from his study of the slab. And I here offer a few 

 remarks, since the like have not been volunteered from any one 

 more competent to sj^eak on the subject, concerning reasons why 

 naturalists should at least hold their judgment in suspense before 

 adopting some of the learned Professor's new conclusions, and in the 

 hope of elucidating the true nature of this singular fossil. 



I will now proceed to give an abstract of the translation in 

 the Ihis, with some comments.^ The head is described by Vogt as 

 small, pyramidal, with the top nearly flat, and the occiput obliquely 

 truncated. The orbit is large, the nostril in front of it ; there are two 

 small sharp conical teeth at the end of the upper jaw. The author is 

 uncertain whether the bone below the skull is the lower jaw or the 

 hyoid bone. He remarks that what one sees of the specimen shows 

 clearly that it is a true Eeptile's head. On this point it is impossible 

 not to wish that Professor Vogt had given reasons for his conclusion, 

 for I fail altogether to recognize reptilian characters. If the skull is 

 reptilian, what reptile does it resemble ? or if there be no resemblance 

 to any order of Eeptilia in particular, what are the points of 

 structure which show it to be reptilian ? I fail to make out, either 

 that the quadrate bone was blended with the skull, or that the post- 

 frontal bone had the usual reptilian form ; or that the skull possessed 

 post-orbital arches such as often characterize reptiles. After the 

 discovery that teeth may exist in the jaws in combination with 

 typical bird structure, as demonstrated by Professor Marsh, we can- 

 not rely alone on the teeth of Archceopteryx in evidence that the 

 skull was reptilian. The skull is very different from that of Sesper- 

 ornis, and altogether distinctive in the position of the eyes, below 

 and in front of the brain-case ; but in this there is nothing unusual 

 in the bird class, and the whole post-orbital region seems to me to 

 be altogether avian, and to display the convex osseous covering 

 of the cerebral hemispheres, with a posterior compression and 

 elevation of the skull into a ridge or crest above the region of 

 the cerebellum. The circle of over-lapping eye-plates goes for 

 nothing either way, nor can any inference be drawn from the posi- 

 tion of the nostril. Therefore, while fully admitting " an elaborate 

 study, requiring much time and care, would be needed to describe 

 the bones of the head," it seems to me that Professor Vogt asks his 

 readers to take his conclusions about the skull in faith as though he 

 were the exponent of an infallible science ; and this is exactly what 

 we are forbidden by our belief in evolution to do. 



The neck is stated to be as long as that of a pigeon of the same 

 size ; it is bent in the form of a horse-shoe, and is said to probably 

 include eight vertebrse, furnished with free ribs. In form and pro- 

 portion the vertebrtB are avian, as are their ribs ; which were 

 probably united to the vertebra3. The author counts ten dorsal 

 vertebras, which are thick, short, as broad as high, and have no 

 elevated neural spines. The dorsal ribs are fine, thin, curved, and 



1 The Plate intended to accompany this notice not being avaihible, a new one 

 will be aiven next month. — Edit. Geol. Mag. 



