No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
II.—A Fragment of a Fossil in a Chalk Flint Pebble from the Sherringham Beach, Norfolk
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
Extract
The difficulties, which the palæontologist encounters in attempting the interpretation of fossil organic remains are numerous, especially when compared with the task of the zoologist in the study of recent forms. In a fossil, for instance, the soft parts of the animal are wanting, while the endo- or exoskeleton is often remarkably dissimilar from that of its nearest living allies. Furthermore, the object he has to deal with has undergone mineralization, more or less completely, so that its appearance is greatly altered. But most frequently the object placed before him is only a fragment of the hard part of some animal which he is nevertheless called upon to identify at once.
- Type
- Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1910
References
page 483 note 1 Das Elbthalgebirge in Sachsen, pt. ii, p. 129, pl xxiv, fig. 16.
page 483 note 2 In Geinitz, , Grundriss d. Versteinerungskunde, p. 613, pl. xxiiib, fig. 34.Google Scholar
page 486 note 1 See a series of illustrated articles “On the Form, Growth, and Construction of Shells” by the late DrWoodward, S. P., edited by Woodward, H., in the Intellectual Observer,, vol. x, pp. 241–53, 11, 1866Google Scholar; vol. xi, pp. 18–30, 161–72, 1867. See also Woodward, Henry, “The Pearly Nautilus, Cuttle-fish, and their Allies”: Student and Intellectual Observer, vol. iv, pp. 1–14Google Scholar; pt. ii, pp. 241–9, 1870. “On the Structure of the Shell of the Pearly Nautilus,” 1870, Brit. Assoc. Sect., Liverpool Meeting, p. 128. “On the Structure of Camerated Shells”: Popular Science Review, vol. xi, pp. 113—20Google Scholar, pl. lxxxii, 1872.