On Prof. Owen's Monograph on Dimorphodon. 129 M. Deshayes was unable to ascertain if the nucleolar whorls were arranged in the form of a little sinistral embryonic shell, as they are in ail true Pyramidellids; and, unfortunately, neither is Mr. M'Andrew's shell in a condition to prove the fact, the apex of the spire being broken off. I am of opinion, however, that Scalenostoma belongs to Styliferidae, and proba-bly should include Chemn�tzia Rang�i of Folin, M�l�agrini-coles, pi. 6. f. 1. X.-Remarks on Prof. Owen's Monograph on Dimorphodon. By HARRY G. SEELEY, F.G.S., Assistant to Prof. Sedgwick in the Woodwardian Museum of the University of Cam-bridge. IN this work several views are urged in osteology which seem to me inconsistent with facts; principles in philosophy are advanced which, if true principles, must place the science of physiology upon a different foundation from that which it has now; and a position is taken by Prof. Owen towards previous writers and with his readers which, if not new, demands ex-planation before the scientific truths of the memoir will be fairly stated. I would guard myself here from the suspicion that I maybe writing merely to correct mistakes or point out oversights.No writer can afford to do that. And errors of that kind areonly defects, often unaccountable, in contributions to know-ledge which are made in strivings to attain to truth. But ailthrough this monograph there runs a bias which warps itsosteology and philosophy, and leads to conclusions whichseem to me to be erroneous, unscientific, and unjust. Thepassages which will be extracted from the monograph willmake this clear, while the remarks appended will contributethe best elucidation of the truth that I can give. First, of Osteology.-This is descriptive of specimens ofDimorphodon from the Lias, and interpretative of the osteo-logy of the whole class of these animais by the evidence fromthe specimens described. Prof. Owen begins with the skull.Herein, so far as the general osteology went, he was precededby Von Meyer and other comparative anatomists of Germany,whose labours have cleared the chief difficulties from the sub-ject. Upon the skull Von Meyer is quoted and argued against,but, I think, both misunderstood and misrepresented; so thatit has seemed to me desirable to reproduce as well as I wasable in English the following account which Von Meyer Ann. & Mag. N. Hisi. Ser. 4. Vol. vi. 9
BioStor
