20 TUE BYOLTITIOl^f OF lA'OCEEAMZ'S. [Feb. I912, 



Discussion. 



Dr. F. A. Bather congratulated the Author ou his success in 

 arranging- the numerous forms of British Cretaceous Inocerami 

 in phylogenetic series, a task that had been impossible so long as 

 the whole material lay confusedly before the museum- worker 

 without strati graphic detail. The addition of this knowledge 

 enabled one to deal with the material group by group, and the 

 comparison of each group with its immediate predecessor was placed 

 on a secure basis by the application of the principle of recapitulation. 

 Further collection and fresh details were, it appeared, required 

 before all the series could be completed. But, when, they were 

 complete, then the palaeontologist would only have reached the 

 beginning of the truly scientific and philosophical aspect of his 

 work. He would have the concrete facts, but their interpretation 

 would still be to seek. What were the causes of the changes ? 

 What habits, what environment, or what impulse produced them ? 

 It was the answer to such questions that constituted the logos of 

 Palaeontology. 



Mr. Gr. E. Die LET alluded to the Author's valuable work in 

 connexion with the Palaeontographical Society's Monograph of 

 Cretaceous Lamellibranchia. Inoceramus and Ostrea afforded per- 

 plexing problems to tlie palaeontologist, and the Author's lucid 

 treatment of the genus Inoceramus deserved the gratitude of all 

 field-workers. 



i 



