^rn i m ti m 



Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. 



577 



1864.] 



rendered it impossible that the supposed intermixture had been effected 

 prior to their despatch. Admitting the fact that the Oxford fossils 

 had been received in England some time previous to the publication of 

 the 18th Volume of the Asiatic Researches, I stated that I had been 

 unable to find any record of the date of the actual receipt of the 

 fossils by Dr. Buckland, or of that of the Society's series by the 

 Society. If these two dates could be ascertained and compared, it 

 would then be seen whether the evidence of the Oxford fossils could 

 be regarded as that of an independent series or not. I asked Di\ 

 Oldham whether he had any such dates, to which he did not reply 

 at the time, but afterwards rose and said that he had not his notes 

 with him, but that he knew that the Oxford series was received at 

 Oxford before the Asiatic Society had received theirs. Thinking 

 however, that Dr. Oldham might possibly be mistaken on this head, 

 and with a view, if possible, to settle this very important point of 

 evidence, I wrote to Professor Maskelyne, to ask him to ascertain 

 whether there existed any record of the actual date of receipt of the 

 Spiti fossils at Oxford, and briefly stating the question at issue, which 

 that date was required to decide. Professor Maskelyne very kindly 

 communicated my letter to Professor John Phillips, and the result is 

 the note which I now read to the society. 



" \ Notes on Himalayan Fossils in the Museum at Oxford ; June 2nd 7 

 1864. By Prof John Phillips. 



1 About 30 years since, I sent from York to Calcutta a considerable 

 series of the fossils of Whitby and some other tracts. The specimens 

 were selected from the duplicates of the Yorkshire Philosophical 

 Society, and were presented by that Institution to some individual of 

 position in Calcutia, whose name I cannot remember (it seems to me 

 to have been Patterson), but could find out. Whether the collection 

 was carefully kept separate at Calcutta, I know not ; but some years 

 afterwards, on being shown in England a specimen of A . communis 

 said to be 'from the Himalaya,' I at once conjectured that the York- 

 shire collection might have given forth this offset so like — so absolutely 

 like — in form, colour, and accompaniments of shale or ironstone. The 

 same astonishing resemblance occurs in regard to these specimens in 

 the Oxford Museum, especially in regard to the Ammonites communis 

 and A. hifrons (Walcottii) 7 which are very common at Whitby, 



