200 
THE GEOLOGIST. 
liave been found at CEuingen hones of littoral birds {' os d'oiscaux de 
rivage), in Alem. d'Hist. iS^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, ph3'S. 63) ; but it is surely questionable, from the locality given, 
Avhether it may not be a very singular reptile, of which we shall speak here- 
after (our Pterodactyle), and not, as M. Blumenbach calls it, a palmipede 
bird. Zannichelli had what he called a ' beak' from GEningen ; but was it 
more real than that of Davila ?"* Scheuchzer cites a feather from the same 
place (Mus. Dil. p. 106 ; Pise. Quer. p. 11 ; 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, Avho, 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 b}' 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 p)lu7nes). But, in supposing they may be 
such indeed, they w ould prove nothing against my previous assertion ; 
there have been none as yet well preserved, except in our gypsum." 
Cuvierthen refers to Lamanon's description, in 1782, of the bird 
found at Montmartreby M. Darcet, and of which he admits there can 
be no doubt. He notices, however, that Lnmanon 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 
iliustralion of the degrees of difference the same object may assume 
under eyes that regard it in a diff'erent 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. 
" But," 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 Montraartre, of 
which M. 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 Montmartre. 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. 
