322 MR. s. s. BLCKMAN OjS^ [vol. Ixxiii, 



a specimen ' PL iii, lig. 1,' which figure shows 186, 51, 45 mm. in 

 these cases, comes from another locality, and has different ribbing. 

 The proportions of the C. C. shell are F. 148, 34, 32, 44, T. 203, 

 34-5, 31, — , and of the Mon. shell, F. 186, 28, 24, 49. 



The whole of the article in Mon. is practically that of the C. C. 

 paper. On p. 276 is a reference (footnote) to Vol. iii of the 

 Proceedings of the Cotteswold Club. In the C. C. paper this 

 footnote cited a prior page of Wright's own paper; in Mon. it cites 

 a page to which it has no reference — another paper, alread}^ cited 

 in footnote of previous page of Mon. 



It will thus be seen that the C. C. paper gives much information 

 necessary to an interpretation of the Monograph ; and that there 

 are several specimens figured in that paper which should have been 

 in the Wright collection, and have been lost sight of : Curators 

 should look out for them. 



Now, however, comes another point of interest — Wright's C. C. 

 paper and his plates of the year 1864 were knoAvn to P-ejaies in 

 Marseilles within a short time of publication. 



The plates of Rejmes's Monograph contain (as Ave know) many 

 original figures, but also many cojDied from other works. Most of 

 these are easily recognizable, although there are no statements as to 

 source. All the text issued Avith the work is the small pamphlet 

 edited by Dr. P. de Ronville, introduction dated 1879. In this is 

 the first part of the text of the ' Monographic des Ammonites,' 

 dated 1867, presumably the year in which the Monograph would 

 have been issued, but for the Author's premature death.^ The 

 preface to this part is dated by Reynes July 14th, 1866. The 

 immediately following Bibliography extends to the year 1864, and 

 under 1863 is ' JVi^ight, On the Ammonites of the lias formations, 

 London.' 



In his pi. xxxvii, figs. 3 & 4, as A. hrooki, lleynes has slightly 

 reduced copies of Wright's A. brooki, C. C. pi. ii, fig. 5 ; and in 

 his pi. xliii, figs. 6 & 7, Resales has again as A. brooJd copies of 

 Wright's A. turneri from Bredon, C. C. pi. li, fig. 2. On the 

 other hand, Arietites scipioniantis, Wright, pi. xiii, published in 

 1879, and Rejmes's Ammonites scipionis, ]A. xxviii, figs. 7-9, illus- 

 trate the same specimen ; and, looking at the identity of details, 

 Wright's plate is presumablj^ a cop}^ of Peynes's plate in existence 

 10 years earlier, though not formall}^ published until 1879. 



It follows from the above remarks, about the specimens repro- 

 duced by Peynes from the C. C. paper, that the suggested possible 

 presence of the BarroAV-Bredon Arietites fauna in the Rhone 

 Basin fails (p. 311), that the isolation of this fauna is thus more 

 remarkable, and that an}" argument for a chronological difference 

 of these Arietites and the Microderocerates of the inflatum set is 

 strengthened. It also follows that the difference of ribbing noted 

 for Reynes's figure of A. hroo'ki is merely due to reduction in size. 



^ However, his ' Essai Geol. Aveyron.' bears date 1868. 



