340 GENERAL SUMMARY TO 



palaeontologists persisted in mixing up the shells belonging to the Terebratula and Rhyn- 

 choneUce under the single name of Terebratula. Baron von Buch in his valuable work 

 ' Ueber Terebrateln ' published in 1834, strange to say, ignored it entirely. 1 



To Eischer we are likewise indebted for two more papers, one published in 1825, 

 'Notice sur la C/toristi/e,' and the other in 1829 entitled ' Sur le systeme apophysaire, 

 ou charpante osseuse des Terebratules,' in which he gives incomplete figures of the 

 spiral appendages of Spirifer and Athyris (?) which he had failed to understand ; he 

 even declined to admit Sowerby's excellent genus Spirifer. 



In 1812 James Sowerby, in the 'Mineral Conchology,' commenced his description of 

 the British fossil Brachiopoda, and continued it to 1822 ; the work after that date, 

 and up to 1845, being carried on by J. de C. Sowerby. 2 To James Sowerby we 

 are indebted for the creation of the genera Pentamerus (in 1813), Productus (in 1814), 

 Mayas (in 1816), and Spirifer (in 1816), all excellent genera; but he likewise seems to 

 have been unacquainted with Fischer's Rhy?ichonetta? 



To William Smith, British geology must ever feel grateful for having introduced his 

 most valuable work ' Strata identified by Fossils,' June, 1816. In that work several 

 British Brachiopoda are figured and placed in their correct stratigraphical position. 



It is not my intention here to allude to the many, too many I fear, genera 

 that have been proposed from time to time by palaeontologists during the present 

 century. Many of these are very valuable ; but perhaps the larger number have been 

 repudiated. 4 



In 1830 Dr. C. H. Pander published his remarkable work ' Beitrage zur Geognosie 

 des Russischen Reiches,' in which he proposes the genera Porambonites, Gonamboniles, 

 Orf/iambonites, Pronites, Hemipronites, and Pledambonites. He also admitted Fischer's 

 genus Rhynchonetta ; 5 but only a very small number of his genera have been retained, 

 many of these being synonyms of the other. 



1 That work at the time of its publication did more than almost any other to stimulate researches in 

 connection with the Brachiopoda ; and through it I was mainly induced to take up the subject, being at the 

 same time strongly urged to do so by the learned Baron himself. His work above alluded to was 

 followed by several others. In 1837 appeared his memoir ' Uber Delthyris oder Spirifer und Orthis.' In 

 1841 his 'Uber Productus oder Leptcena ' was issued; and in 1847 was published his memoir 'Uber 

 Spirifer Keilhavi.' Several of the above-named monographs were subsequently translated into French 

 and published in the ' Memoires de la Societe Geologique de France.' 



2 In the 'Bulletin de la Society Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles,' 1855, M. E. Renevier published a 

 useful paper, entitled " Dates of the Publication of the Species contained in the Plates of Sowerby's 

 Mineral Conchology of Great Britain." 



3 The claims of the genus Rhynchonella have been ably advocated by M. C. Rouillier in the volumes 

 of the ' Bulletin de la Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou ' for years 1844 — 1849. 



4 A list of the genera of Brachiopoda up to 1856 is given by Prof. E. Suess at p. 158 of his German 

 edition of my General Introduction published in Vol. I of my 'British Fossil Brachiopoda;' also by Mr. 

 W. Dall in his ' Index to the Names which have been applied to the Subdivisions of the Class Brachiopoda 

 previous to the year 1877.' Since then several more have been proposed. 



5 Pander's work is exceedingly scarce and hardly procurable. 





