Page:The Zoologist, 1st series, vol 1 (1843).djvu/158

130 so awkward and uncouth does it appear. One conclusion is general amongst those who have described these creatures; namely, that they were possessed of powerful wings, capable of sustaining continuous and rapid flight: but beyond this I cannot consider any of the hypotheses relating to pterodactyles as firmly established; and as I have ventured, in my sketch of the ' System of Nature,' to express an opinion that they were marsupial bats, I think myself in some degree called on to defend that opinion, or at least to state my reasons for advancing it. I trust that in the course of the enquiry I shall be able, if not to establish my own views, at least to point out some peculiarities in structure well worthy the attention of the readers of 'The Zoologist.'

That the pterodactyles were vertebrated animals must be admitted by all; but whether fishes, reptiles, birds, marsupials or placentals, is a matter concerning which a diversity of opinions have been entertained. It was suggested by one author that they were birds; but the idea does not seem to have gained many proselytes. The earlier writers generally considered the pterodactyles as mammalious animals clothed with hair; and this opinion, like the former, has long been regarded as an exploded error. In venturing therefore to revive it, I am not altogether unprepared for the ridicule which my supposed ignorance must of necessity provoke. I quite anticipate that my views will be received with that condescending, unassuming and gentlemanly, but very decisive smile which says, more forcibly than words, "You are in the wrong: you should turn to the masterly observations of Buckland; in his 'Bridgwater Treatise' you will find the question set at rest for ever; and you will at once perceive that your present views originate in the want of sufficient information." I have often spoken of these same pterodactyles with men of good repute as comparative anatomists, but I never could get them beyond the words, —

"Cuvier has said it; Buckland has declared it:"—and thus a question of the highest interest depends not on fact, but on the infallibility of Cuvier and Buckland. Now I believe it within the range of possibility that Cuvier and Buckland should both be in error. I confess that this is highly improbable, but I contend that it is possible. Regard them as we may, there is still that evidence of humanity about them that induces us to suppose them capable of error. The time is hardly past when the world of naturalists was prostrate before Linneus: and when honest Peter Collinson, happening to see some swallows winging their way to warmer climes on the approach of winter, and having ventured to doubt the celebrated Linnean hypothesis of submersion, the world turned on poor gentle Peter, and gave him to understand he