used for Agricultural Purposes. 403 
Gknkbal Composition of Fkench Boulogne Coprolites. 
No. 1. 
No. 2. 
No. 3. 
No. 4. 
No. 5. 
No. 6. 
No. 7. 
r -84 
\ Q . 1 A 
O li 
21-06 
33 06 
16-92 
24-98 
1-15 
1 /U 
21-15 
33-71 
16-93 
25-36 
104\ 
18- 63 
31-15 
19- 54 
27-50 
3-38 
20-51 
32-67 
20-04 
23-40 
3-92 
20-48 
31-38 
18-17 
26 05 
3-09 
22-57 
33-92 
14-88 
25-54 
iter of combination, &c. J 
ide of iron, alumina, etc. 
;oluble siliceous matter 
i^qaal to tribasic phos-"! 
phate of lime .. ../ 
3-86 
19-82 
30-52 
19-10 
26-70 
100-00 10000 
100-00 
100 00 
100-00 
100-00 
100 00 
43-28 45-97 
1 
44-94 
40-67 
44-77 
44-71 
49-27 
2, Russian Coprolites. 
Russia, I am informed, possesses an immense tract of land in 
the Governmental department of Koursk, where phosphatic 
aodules are found in large quantities. In appearance the 
samples of Russian coprolites which have come under my notice 
can hardly be distinguished from specimens of the coprolitic 
deposits in Bedfordshire. I have made only a single analysis 
A Russian coprolites, which yielded the following results : — 
Composition of a Sample of Hussian Coprolites. 
Moisture and water of combiuation 3-5r> 
♦Phosphoric acid 22-42 
Lime 33-84 
Oxide of iron, alumina, fiuoriue, carbonic acid, &c. 9-94 
Insoluble siliceous matter 30-25 
100-00 
* Equal to tiibasic phosphate of lime . , . . 48-94 
This sample, it will be seen, contained in round numbers 49 
iper cent, of phosphate of lime, and about one-third its weight 
of insoluble siliceous matter. It had a dark-brown colour, and 
contained apparently a good deal of oxide of iron and fluoride 
of calcium, but not much carbonate of lime. 
3. English Coprolites. 
In the former paper, already quoted, I published several de- 
tailed analyses of Cambridge and Suffolk coprolites, to which 
the reader is referred. 
Cambridgeshire still furnishes considerable supplies of the 
