authorities and inhabitants of the district. His loss is the more to be regretted, inasmuch as it disappoints those hopes held forth by my predecessor last year, in allusion to the geological discoveries to be expected from Dr. Stanger, who was to have undertaken an official geological exploration of the province of Natal.

*

*

**

*

The only loss we have sustained amongst our Foreign Associciates is that of Dr. GOTTHELF FRIEDRICH FISCHER DE WALDHEIM, Professor of Natural History in the University of Moscow. He was born at Waldheim, in Saxony, on the 15th October, 1771, and studied mineralogy at Freiberg, with Leopold von Buch and Baron von Humboldt, completing his medical studies at the University of Leipzic. At Paris he subsequently attended the lectures of Cuvier, and carefully studied the natural-history collections of the French Museum. He had already given evidence of his extensive learning by numerous publications, when, in 1800, he was appointed Professor of Natural History at the Central School of Mayence. On his arrival there, however, he found that the chair had been given to another; and with that power of adaptation which belongs to true genius, he at once accepted the office of Librarian, which for a time led him away to other studies, particularly typographical antiquities. On this subject he published several valuable works until 1804. But he did not, in the mean time, neglect his favorite pursuit; he founded at Mayence a Natural History Society, of which he became the Secretary, and in 1804 published his 'Anatomie der Maki un der ihm verwandten Thiere.' In the same year he was appointed Professor and Director of the Museum of Natural History at Moscow, where a new field was opened to his talents, in which he had labored with zeal and energy during the remainder of his life. In the year 1805 he founded the Society of Naturalists of Moscow, and published the first volume of his 'Description du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle,' the copper-plates of which he engraved with his own hands. This Museum, for the establishment and improvement of which he had so strenuously exerted himself, was destroyed during the conflagration of the city in 1812. Such a calamity would have gone nigh to overwhelm an ordinary man. Dr. Fischer rose above the circumstances, and with redoubled ardor immediately set to work to replace, as far as possible, the treasures which had been lost. Such were his efforts, and such was the success with which they were attended, that in a very few years the new Museum had again acquired a valuable collection of objects of natural history. He had now begun to direct his attention more exclusively to the study of fossil zoology, or as it is now called, Palæontology. In the 'Bibliographia Zoologiæ et Geologiæ' of Agassiz, published by the Ray Society, there are no less than 150 notices of separate works and memoirs in Journals and TransacSECOND SERIES, Vol. XX, No. 60.-Nov., 1855.

50

tions published by him during the course of his long and laborious life. Among these are many bearing directly on our science, and which must have had considerable influence in directing the attention of the Russian Government to the mineral riches of the country, and of making its geological features better known beyond the limits of his own district, I will only mention a few of his more important works:-"Oryctographie du Gouvernement de Moscou," 1837; "Bibliographia Palæontologica Animalium Systematica," 1810; a second edition in 1834; "Notice des Fossiles du Gouvernement de Moscou," 1809-1811; "Notice sur quelques Animaux fossiles de la Russie," 1829; "Ueber verschiedene fossile Elephanten-species, die man unter dem Namen Mammouth begreift," 1831; "Recherches sur les Ossemens fossiles de la Russie," 1824; "Lettre à Murchison sur le Rhopalodon, genre de Saurien fossile du Versant occidental de l'Oural," 1841; Revue des Fossiles du Gouvernement de Moscou," 1846; and many others. He was elected a Foreign Member of this Society, and of the Linnean Society, in 1820. He died at Moscow, on the 6th of Oct., 1853, having nearly completed his eighty-second year.

*

*

*

ART. XXXVI.-Notice of Fossil Bones from the Red Sandstone of the Connecticut River Valley; by JEFFRIES WYMAN, M.D.

THE fragments of bones here described were noticed more than twenty-five years since by Mr. Solomon Ellsworth while blasting for a well in East Windsor, Ct. The well had been sunk to the depth of twenty-five feet below the surface and eighteen feet into the sandstone, when some pieces of bone were recognised among the debris. They were examined by Prof. Nathan Smith and his account of them with a note by Prof. Silliman may be found in Vol. ii, of this Journal. In Vol. iii, p. 247, in a letter to the editor by John Hale Esq., it is stated that Dr. Porter who saw them when they were removed from the well, decided that they were not, as they had been supposed to be by some, human, but "belonged to some animal and that the animal must have been about five feet long. The tail bone was easily discovered by its numerous articulations distinctly visible, and by its projecting in a curvilinear direction beyond the mass." He also says that "they resemble some particular bones of the human body but would also compare with certain bones of other animals," but does not state what bones or what animal.

Through the kindness of Prof. Silliman and of Mr. Alfred Smith of Hartford, Ct., I have had all the specimens now remaining of the above mentioned collection placed at my disposal for examination. The collection consists of about sixteen pieces

of sandstone each containing one or more fragments of bone, but the larger number of these are so much broken up, that it was found impracticable to determine anything with regard to their nature. All are soft, chalky and friable; and in no instance is there one entire bone or one complete articulating surface visible. Yet imperfect as they are, coming from the New Red Sandstone, anything which can be determined with regard to any of them is of great interest. For while we have well preserved the innumerable impressions of the feet of birds and reptiles, the bones here noticed are, in so far as I can learn, the only ones which are publicly known to have been brought to light.

One of the best preserved bones is the fragment of a vertebra, the body of which is nearly entire, and is probably one of the "tail bones" described by Dr. Porter, but according to his description must have been more complete than it now is. The arch is broken off; the base of one pedicle remains; a transverse process on the left side is indicated by an imprint in the matrix; this process is broad at the base, thin and triangular, projects laterally in a horizontal plane and is slightly recurved. One extremity of the body is so completely imbedded in the matrix that only a slightly convex border is visible; the other extremity is exposed but is obliquely fractured, leaving only a part of the natural surface visible, and this is concave; the body is constricted in the middle, having an hour-glass shape, has no indentations on the side, and is somewhat compressed laterally. The floor of the spinal canal is represented by a deep channel, the sides of which meet at the bottom at an acute angle midway, but at either end spread out and become nearly level. The dimensions of the vertebra were as follows,

In front of the body just described is the fragment of what appears to be a second vertebra, and beneath this is a pointed fragment about seven-tenths of an inch in length, bifurcated where it touches the other bones and which has the character of an inferior spinous process. Behind the more complete vertebra is the anterior portion of a third, obliquely fractured so that a portion of its concave anterior extremity, and the edge of the left transverse process alone remain. In another piece of matrix is a portion of the arch and a cast of the spinal canal of a fourth vertebra, having also a portion of the spinous process; the canal conforms to that already described, and in front of this last vertebra is the fragment of the spinous process of a fifth. In another piece of

matrix is the fragment of a sixth having the articulating processes imperfectly preserved.

Of these six imperfect vertebræ only that first described, and the piece behind it offer distinctive characters of any importance. The presence of an inferior spinous process shows that it belonged to the caudal series; the existence of an anterior concavity, and the presence of a superior transverse process coexisting with an inferior spinous process are essentially reptilian features. In fishes the superior transverse processes are always deficient, and the inferior ones alone exist; these in the tail bend down to form the inferior spinous processes. If this bone is the one referred to by Dr. Porter as a "tail bone" his view as regards the kind of vertebra was correct, though he gives no reason for his conclusion. In addition it may be stated that it is a caudal vertebra of a Saurian reptile, to which it corresponds in the shape of the body and the transverse processes, and more nearly to those of the Crocodiles than any others.

Nearly all the remaining bones are too much broken up to allow of the determination. Still some of them present features of a general character, which are of sufficient significance to require a few remarks. One of the most striking characteristics is that of hollowness, and this in two cases is quite remarkable. In one of them we have a transverse fracture of what appears to be a cylindrical bone; the exposed fractured end is oval, measures one and one tenth of an inch in its long and six tenths in its short diameter; the cavity is very large, without cancelli and the walls of the bone are only one tenth of an inch in thickness. Near to this in the same mass of the matrix is another fragment which is exposed in transverse section as well as on a portion of its lateral surface. In its transverse section, it is more compressed than the preceding, but has equally thin walls and no cancelli. The whole fragment bears some resemblance to the upper extremity of the humerus of a bird,* distorted by pressure. The large size of the cavity and the thin walls lead us to compare this and the preceding specimen with the remains of birds, for it is among these alone that the cavities become proportionally so large and the walls so thin. Still it must be remembered that some reptilian bones are hollow. The Iguanodon, Pelorosaurus and Hylæosaurus described by Dr. Mantell, which had medullary cavities in the humerus and femur, but in them the walls were proportionally very much thicker, and the medullary canal was quite short.

Several other pieces of matrix contained fragments of bone which were hollow and with thicker walls; but they were too much injured to allow of determination.

*Its resemblance to a humerus was noticed by Prof. Silliman in the note appended to Mr. Smith's communication-in vol. ii, of this Journal

Two more pieces of bone remain to be noticed: they are about three inches in length, are longitudinally fractured and a large portion of each is gone; they have some indications of cancellated structure near one of the ends, and bear some resemblance to the boues of the fore-arm of a Saurian reptile, the form of the longer bone corresponding with that of the ulna, and the lower extremities of both agreeing in proportions with an ulua and radius; the upper portion of the supposed radius is nearly all gone.

ART. XXXVII.—On the Distribution of Rain in the Temperate Zone; by H. W. DOVE.*

In the Meteorological Annual of France for 1850 observations for ten years on the quantity of rain falling in Algiers are given by Don, which show that the quantity diminishes almost regularly from January to July, and then regularly increases to December. This regularity is seen in the number of falls of rain, for in these ten years there were in January 88 rainy days, in December 83; in July, on the other hand, only a single one in 1844. These proportions hold good for the Canaries and Azores, they apply, too, even in the south of Europe, for in Funchal the quantity of rain diminishes from 92"" in January to 0.9 in July. In St. Michael it is found after ten years of observation, to be four times greater in January than in July. In Lisbon the proportions are for December and July 55:2, in Palermo 37:21, Naples has in March and October 49", in July not 7"". Even in Rome the fall of rain is ten times more in October than in July. This periodical law is seen not only in the measurement of the fall of water, but in every accompanying phenomenon of temperature. After three months of almost perfectly clear weather only rarely interrupted by a tempest, the rains begin in Rome, on the 10th of October, though often sooner, and last, with fierce storms, almost without interruption, till the end of December. They diminish a little towards spring, so that the whole winter is rather a changeable than cold season, a continuous change from Tramontane to Sirocco. Even if we cannot divide the year, as do the Indians on the Orinoco, into a season of sunshine and clouds, yet the contrast of the rainless hot months and the continuously rainy winter is very marked. The beginning and end of this rainy period are usually marked by storms; Lucretius says of it: Auctumnoque magis, stellis fulgentibus apta, Concutitur cœli domus undique, totaque tellus; Et, quom tempora se veris florentia pandunt: Frigore enim desunt ignes, venteique calore Deficiunt, neque sunt tam denso corpore nubes.

* Annalen der Physik, No. 94. Translated for this Journal by Dr. Rosengarten.