84 
FOSSIL REPTILIA OF THE 
William Clift, F.R.S., enabled contemporaiy investigators, more capable than Home 
in determining the true nature and affinities of the fossils, to contribute a durable and 
rich accession to their science. 
In this work the names of Conybeare and De la Beche^ stand pre-eminent, and with 
them must be associated that of Charles Konig, whose appreciation of the affinities of 
the animal, the fossil remains of which he figured in the work above cited, is exemplified 
by the generic name which the extinct Reptile has subsequently borne.^ 
Baron Cuvier amply confirmed the conclusions to which the above-cited authors, 
and, subsequently, Conybeare® arrived, and introduced copies of figures illustrative of 
their papers in the concluding volume of his great work on ‘Fossil Remains.’^' 
In the same year Prof. George Fred. Jaeger recognised fossils as Ichthyosaurian in 
the Lias of Boll, to one of the plates in whose Work reference will be subsequently made.® 
Subsequent additions to the history of the genus Ichthyosaurus will be found in my 
‘ Report on British Fossil Reptiles,’ in the volume of the British Association for the year 
1839, 8vo., p. 86. 
Before entering upon the details of structure and specific characters I may remark 
that whenever the antecedent representatives of a class or order may be known, to which 
an extinct genus is referable, the characters of the genus should be compared with those 
of its predecessors in such class, rather than with its successors or with existing forms, 
to gain an insight into its true affinities.® 
The Labyrinthodont order, prevalent from the Carboniferous to the Triassic forma- 
tion, manifests the tendency to dermal or peripheral ossifications which was carried out 
to greater extent in older and lower vertebrate forms. The Ichthyopterygian order, pre- 
valent from the Liassic to the Cretaceous period, continues to show the supplementary 
‘ prosquamosals ’ (Pis. XXIII and XXIV, fig. 1, 27') and ‘ postorbitals ’ (ib. ib., 12) ; and 
the vertebral centrums retain the biconcave character (PI. XXII, fig. 6). The ‘foramen 
parietale’ (PI. XXIII, fig. 1,/) is common in Carboniferous,^ Permian, and Triassic 
^ “ Notice of a Discovery of a new Fossil Animal forming a link between the Ichthyosaurus and Croco- 
dile ; together with general remarks on the Osteology of the Ichthyosaurus,” ‘Transactions of the 
Geological Society,’ 4to, vol. v, 1821, p. 559, pis. lx, Ixi, Ixii. 
2 “ We have retained in these observations the name Ichthyosaurus, originally applied to this animal 
by Mr. Kcinig, of the British Museum, feeling convinced that on a full and careful review of its whole 
structure it will not be found to possess analogies sufficiently numerous or strong with the peculiar organi- 
sation of Proteus to authorise the change of this appellation into Proteosaurus, as subsequently proposed.” 
— Tom. cit., p. 563, Conybeare and De la Beebe. 
^ “ Additional Notices on the Fossil Genera Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus,” ‘ Trans, of the Geolo- 
gical Society,’ 2nd series, vol. i (1824), p. 103. 
^ ‘ Recherches sur les Ossemens Fossiles,’ 4to, tome 5eme, 2de partie, 1824, p. 447, pi. ii. 
5 ‘ De Ichthyosauri sive Proteosauri fossilibus speciminibus in Agro Bollensi repertis,’ 4to, 1824. 
® Owen, ‘Palaeontology,’ 8vo, 1860, p. 206. 
^ “ Ueber Arehegosaurns Dechenii, Goldf.,” von Dr. G. Jager, 4to, ‘ Miinchen Abhandl.,’ Bd. v, 
1847, p. 415, tab. xxvi, fig. 1. 
