206 



THE GEOLOGIST. 



have been found at CEningen bones of littoral birds (' os oVoiseaux de 

 rivage), in Mem. d'Hist. IN" at. (Trad. Fr.) ii. 408. As to those of Pappen- 

 heim, he refers to the Memoirs of the Academy of Manheim (Act. as Theod. 

 pal. v. pars, phys. 63) ; but it is surely questionable, from the locality given, 

 •whether it may not be a very singular reptile, of which we shall speak here- 

 after (our Pteroclactyle), and not, as M. Blumenbach calls it, a palmipede 

 bird. Zannichelli had what he called a 'beak' from GEniDgen; but was it 

 more real than that of Davila ?"* Scheuchzer cites a feather from the same 

 place (Mus. Dil. p. 106 ; Pise. Quer. p. 14 ; Phys. Sac. i. t. 53, f. 22) ; but 

 he did not convince Fortis, who believed it was only a Sertularia (Jour, de 

 Phys. flor. an viii. p. 334) ; nor Hermann, who, he says, is always ridiculing 

 this pretended feather (op. cit. p. 340). We should have them under our 

 eyes to judge. Fortis was not more convinced of the examples of feathers 

 from Monte Bocla, which he saw at Verona (op. cit. p. 334), two of which 

 have been published by M. Faujas (Annales du Museum d'Hist. Nat. vol. vi. 

 p. 21, pi. 1). I confess, however, that if there are any portions able to carry 

 conviction, they are those which I have examined with the greatest care 

 many times, and in which I can discover no character whatever to distin- 

 guish them from feathers (des plumes). But, in supposing they may be 

 such indeed, they would prove nothing against my previous assertion ; 

 there have been none as yet well preserved, except in our gypsum." 



Cuvier then refers to Lamanon's description, in 1782, of the bird 

 found at Montrnartre by M. Darcet, and of which he admits there can 

 be no doubt. He notices, however, that Lamanon has put in the 

 feathers of the wings and tail, and has unfortunately given his ima- 

 gination a little play; he insinuates, also, that the drawing is not 

 very like the original. He moreover tells us that Fortis, who had 

 conceived strong prejudices against the existence of Ornitholites, 

 examined afresh what had been described by Lamanon, and gave a 

 figure according to his own ideas ; thereby affording a very remarkable 

 illustration of the degrees of difference the same object may assume 

 under eyes that regard it in a different aspect. " We can distinguish 

 nothing," says Cuvier, " in the figure given by Fortis ; the head is 

 upside down, all the inequalities of the stone are exaggerated, the 

 osseous imprints weakened ; in short, the author declares he can see 

 in this fragment only a frog or a toad." 



The fact is, however, as Cuvier states, and there can be no doubt 

 at all that this specimen is a veritable ornitholite. 



" Put," he adds, " one could hardly have dared to sustain it if there had 

 not since been found in our plaster-works pieces more characteristic and 

 suited to confirm it. Peter Camper mentions one, but without describing 

 it, in an article on the fossil bones of Maestricht, published in the Philo- 

 sophical Transactions for 1786. It is a foot found at Montrnartre, of 

 whichM. Camper, jun., has sent me a drawing, which I have had engraved 

 in the 'Bulletin de la Societe Philomathique,' for Fructidor. An VIII. 

 I had myself a second piece, also a foot. This was from Clignan court, 

 below Montrnartre. I described it in a note read before the Institute the 

 13 Thermidor, An VIII., and published in the ' Journal de Physique ' of 



* Was not the aptychus of the Ammonite sometimes noticed under the term " beak " 

 by some of the old writers ? — S. J. M. 



