12 
BEEKITE, 
covered with Chalcedony^ generally arranged in tubercles, each of 
which is not unfrequently surrounded by one or more rings ; and 
occasionally the same ring invests two or more tubercles. The 
tubercles vary in size from a small pin’s head to a moderately sized 
pea. Occasionally the Chalcedony seems arranged on two different 
patterns or types, or more correctly, the same type on two different 
scales. When broken the Beekite is found in the interior to be 
calcareous . . . occasionally only a few grains of matter 
remain within the crust, in which case the Beekite will float on water. 
I have never met with a nucleus which was not a fossil; occasion- 
ally a doubtful specimen has presented itself, but the organic 
structure has been readily displayed by the action of muriatic 
acid, or by having the nucleus cut and polished. The fossils are 
all of Devonian age, and are either sponges, corals, or shells. 
Even when the nucleus is found resolved into dust, the 
structure of the extinct sponge or coral (of which it is the frail 
memorial) has sometimes been quite evident on it. . . . Fre- 
quently the organic structure is also preserved on the inner, or 
concave surface of the enveloping crust ; it is no rare occurrence 
to find the crust broken, and the nucleus gone, but still to be 
able to read the nature of the organism by the characters traced 
on its inner surface. ... In most cases the outer surface of 
the crust is destitute of any organic traces, though specimens are 
found in which the character of the enclosed nucleus is quite 
evident on the exterior.” 
The writer then goes on with sundry speculations as to the 
deposit of the Beekite, but ingenious as they are, they are all 
founded on misconception and therefore not of any service. It is a 
curious thing that while the earlier part of his paper could not have 
been better stated, the last few pages go off the track, mainly 
through his taking too local a view of the evidence. It is strange 
that although other specimens were shown him (from Scotland, 
Somerset, &c.) he appears to have ignored them, and instead of 
following up this clue, based his conclusions on the mistaken 
idea that Beekites could only be found in any quantity in the 
conglomerates of his particular district ! His main theory is the 
decomposition of calcareous pebbles in water containing soluble 
silica, but how or why it occurs only on pebbles containing organic 
remains is not explained. In his conclusion he remarks, “ In 
accordance with these opinions, Beekite can only be expected in 
conglomerate rocks which contain decomposing calcareous pebbles, 
and through which water charged with Chalcedony passes. A 
collection of circumstances which is probably not frequent ; and 
hence the apparently limited distribution of Beekites.” 
Unfortunately it never occurred to Pengelly to follow up another 
clue which he notes in his paper, and then drops, i.e.^ that all 
the Beekites were on a fossil nucleus, and further, the fossils 
were recognised by him as Devonian ! Had he examined some of 
