130 Quadrupeds. 



so awkward and uncouth does it appear. One conclusion is general 

 amongst those who have described these creatures ; namely, that they 

 were possessed of powerful wings, capable of sustaining continuous 

 and rapid flight: but beyond this I cannot consider any of the hypo- 

 theses relating to pterodactyles as firmly established ; and as I have 

 ventured, in my sketch of the ' System of Nature,' to express an opin- 

 ion that they were marsupial bats, I think myself in some degree called 

 on to defend that opinion, or at least to state my reasons for advan- 

 cing it. I trust that in the course of the enquiry I shall be able, if 

 not to establish my own views, at least to point out some peculiarities 

 in structure well worthy the attention of the readers of ' The Zoologist.' 

 That the pterodactyles were vertebrated animals must be admitted 

 by all ; but whether fishes, reptiles, birds, marsupials or placentals, 

 is a matter concerning which a diversity of opinions have been enter- 

 tained. It was suggested by one author that they were birds ; but 

 the idea does not seem to have gained many proselytes. The earlier 

 writers generally considered the pterodactyles as mammalious animals 

 clothed with hair; and this opinion, like the former, has long been re- 

 garded as an exploded error. In venturing therefore to revive it, I 

 am not altogether unprepared for the ridicule which my supposed 

 ignorance must of necessity provoke. I quite anticipate that my 

 views will be received with that condescending, unassuming and gen- 

 tlemanly, but very decisive smile which says, more forcibly than words, 

 " You are in the wrong : you should turn to the masterly observations 

 of Buckland; in his * Bridgwater Treatise' you will find the question 

 set at rest for ever ; and you will at once perceive that your present 

 views originate in the want of suflicient information." I have often 

 spoken of these same pterodactyles with men of good repute as com- 

 parative anatomists, but I never could get them beyond the words, — 

 " Cuvier has said it ; Buckland has declared it : " — and thus a ques- 

 tion of the highest interest depends not on fact, but on the infallibility 

 of Cuvier and Buckland. Now I believe it within the range of possi- 

 hility that Cuvier and Buckland should both be in error. I confess 

 that this is highly improbable^ but I contend that it is possible. Regard 

 them as we may, there is still that evidence of humanity about them 

 that induces us to suppose them capable of error. The time is hardly 

 past when the world of naturalists was prostrate before Linneus : and i 

 when honest Peter Collinson, happening to see some swallows wing- ¥ 

 ing their way to warmer climes on the approach of winter, and having 

 ventured to doubt the celebrated Linnean hypothesis of submersion, 

 the world turned on poor gentle Peter, and gave him to understand he 





