MEYER ON THE SAURIANS OF THE MUSCHELKALK, 43 
Next to Wiirtemberg, Franconia deserves consideration on account 
of the saurian remains in its keuper. These remains, which are in- 
closed in sandstone, have engaged the attention both of Count Munster 
and of myself*. To the fossils more particularly described in the 
present work belong the remains of the gigantic Plateosaurus Engel- 
Aarti, from the upper keuper at Heroldsberg near Niirnberg. Here 
must also be mentioned the keuper near Gotha, from the dolomite in 
which, Mining-master Credner notices some saurian teeth. A tooth 
given to me by his brother, Prof. Credner, in Giessen, from this for- 
mation, has belonged to the Labyrinthodon. 
The muschelkalk, the centre member of the trias, consists espe- 
cially of limestone, but sometimes also appears as dolomite, anhydrite, 
gypsum and rock-salt, whilst it only approaches to sandstone near its 
passage into the bunter sandstone. The muschelkalk is consequently 
a more calcareous member, uniting the keuper to the bunter sand- 
stone, without which it rarely appears. Bronn+ conjoins it with 
the other trias deposits under the name of the ‘Salt-formation’ 
(Salzgebirg), because they are distinguished by deposits of salt ; but 
this is also true of other formations. The muschelkalk had originally 
the name of the newer, upper, or newest Flétzmuschelkalk, calcaire 
secondaire coquillier. In Germany the name Trochitenkalk, Trochite- 
limestone, from the numerous stems of crinoids that occur in it, was 
also current. The designation of Gryphite-limestone, used especially 
in Wirtemberg, showed that the distinction between the lias and 
muschelkalk was not properly understood. But not only was the lias 
confounded with it ; even much newer formations, belonging to the 
forest marble, the cornbrash and the Portland stone, were mistaken 
for the muschelkalk or mixed up with it. In consequence great un- 
certainty existed regarding the occurrence of the muschelkalk and its 
fossils, until Alex. von Humboldt introduced a more precise division 
of this formation under the terms muschelkalk, calcaire coquillier, 
calcaire de Géttingue. He did not, however, succeed in separating 
from it the beds belonging to the Jura formation; and although he 
did not consider the lias as exactly identical with the muschelkalk, 
yet he adhered to the parallelism of the two formations. Elie de 
Beaumont § pointed out the true diagnosis of the muschelkalk when 
he said that it is distinguished from the zechstein by containing no 
producti, and from the lias by wanting belemnites, ammonites with 
foliated sutures (Ammonites persillées), and also gryphites. We owe 
the most thorough investigation of the muschelkalk to the Councillor 
of Mines, Alberti, who, in his work on the geology of Wiirtemberg 
(1826), and subsequently (1834) in his ‘ Monograph of the Bunter 
Sandstone, the Muschelkalk and Keuper as one formation,’—the trias, 
—treated of it at full length. Lying above the bunter sandstone, and 
usually accompanying it, the muschelkalk appears first in the vicinity 
of Bale, then in the western and, in more extent, in the eastern 
* Beitrage zur Petrefactenk.; and various letters in the Jahrbiich fir Mine- 
ralogie. 
t+ Lethza, vol. i. p. 130. t{ Geognostischer Versuch, p. 273. 
§ Amn. Scien. Nat. vol. xiv. p. 277. 
