The old red sandstone; or, New walks in an old field To which is appended a series of geological papers, read before the Royal physical society of Edinburgh . mp enough to suggestthose doubts regarding original meaning which lead to various read-ings ; but the geologist and the naturalist agreed in perusing themafter exactly the same fashion — the one in London, the other inNeufchatel. Such instances give confidence in the findings of sci-ence. The decision of Mr. Murchison I subjoin in his own words —his numbers refer to various specimens of PtericJithxjs : ? As to yourfossils 1, 2, 3, we kno
The old red sandstone; or, New walks in an old field To which is appended a series of geological papers, read before the Royal physical society of Edinburgh . mp enough to suggestthose doubts regarding original meaning which lead to various read-ings ; but the geologist and the naturalist agreed in perusing themafter exactly the same fashion — the one in London, the other inNeufchatel. Such instances give confidence in the findings of sci-ence. The decision of Mr. Murchison I subjoin in his own words —his numbers refer to various specimens of PtericJithxjs : ? As to yourfossils 1, 2, 3, we know nothing of them here, (London,) except thatthey remind me of the occipital fragments of some of the Caithnessfishes. I do not conceive they can be referrible to any reptile ;for, if not fishes, they more closely approach to crustaceans than toany other class. I conceive, however, that Agassiz will pronouncethem to be fishes,*Avhich, together with tlie curious genus Cephalaspisof the Old Red Sandstone, form the connecting links between crusta-ceans and fishes. Your specimens remind one in several respects ofthe CephalOSj is. 44* PLATE I. Fis. Fig. A. r Milleri ^*^.
Size: 1530px × 1632px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookdecade1850, bookpublishe, booksubjectgeology
