11.07.2015 Views

Number 5 - Geological Curators Group

Number 5 - Geological Curators Group

Number 5 - Geological Curators Group

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

THE GEOLOGICAL CURATORVOLUME 5. N0.5CONTENTSFOREWORDCONTENTS........................................................COLLECTIONS. COLLECTORS AND MUSEUMS OF NOTE . NO . 55.GEOLOGICAL COLLECTORS AND MUSEUMS IN CHELTENHAM1810-1988: A CASE HISTORY AND ITS LESSONSby H . S . Torrens and M . A . TaylorIntroduction .........................The first 'Cheltenham Museums': The Mawe and Tatlow Museum .The Cheltenham Literary and Philosophical Institution Museum . .Early geological collectors in the Cheltenham area (up to 1850) .The development of the CLPI's geological collections ......The Jenkins family: commercial dealers in Cheltenham .....The British Association visit of 1856 and its aftermath .....The Cheltenham Working Naturalists' Association and theCheltenham Naturalists' Association .............The Cheltenham College Museum ................The museum of Cheltenham Ladies College ...........The Cheltenham Natural Science Society ............The College of Saint Paul and Saint Mary ...........Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum ..............Conclusions .........................References ..........................Appendices ..........................BOOK REVIEWS ........................GEOLOGICAL CURATORS' GROUPAugust 1990


When two of the most prolific contributors tothe pages of <strong>Geological</strong> Curator join forces,something exceptional might be expected toresult. When both authors are well known forthe 'missionary' zeal with which they pursuetheir commitment to help improve the standardsof care and use of geological collections, andhave a reputation for utilizing thoroughhistorical research to highlight the origins andshortcomings of present-day curatorial attitudesand resource management, then the focussing oftheir combined talents on the history of onetown's geological heritage is likely to prove ofmore than local significance. Such is mostcertainly the ease with the Cheltenham stary, astold by Hugh Torrens and Mike Taylor.Here, in a single English town, we can followthe development of almost the entire range ofcircumstances which led to the cycles of growthand decline of geological collections across19th and 2Dth century Britain - private,society, school, college, and local authoritymuseums are all documented. In past issues ofthis journal and elsewhere, Hugh Torrens hasbrought to light many sad collection historiesin which early enthusiasm was replaced first byindifference, then neglect and finally, all toooften, by total destruction. By so doing he hasquite deliberately helped to fire a generationof curators with the will to see thatprofessional standards of collection care areraised, resources are increased and publicaccessibility is improved, in the hope that pasttragedies are never repeated.Mike Taylor is one such curator whose pioneeringwork as the Area Museum Council for the SouthWest's <strong>Geological</strong> Officer (from 1983 to 1987)set the pattern for similar peripatetic schemeselsewhere. Here too Cheltenham provides aclassic example of how practical advice from aspecialist peripatetic curator, coupled withArea Museum Council support, can fire residentnon-geological museum staff with an enthusiasmto solve the problems of unwittingly inheritedneglect, and instigate an ambitious programme ofrescue curation.There are serious lessons here not only forgeological curators but also for museumprofessionals of other disciplines and forhistorians of science. Yet the story is justas fascinating (and highly readable) for thosewhose interests focus on the history ofCheltenham itself or encompass the broaddevelopment of British science and society. Asimilar (if less complete) story could be toldabout many other towns and cities across theFOREWORDcountry, But it is Cheltenham's very goodfortune that Hugh Zorrens and Mike Faylor choseto devote so much of their skills and energiesto documenting the geological heritage of itspeople and museums.Peter R. CrowtherEditor, <strong>Geological</strong> <strong>Curators</strong>' <strong>Group</strong>18 August 1990


Gcolap,rcal Curator, Vol .5, No.5. 1990 (for 1988), ppCO1.I.ECTIONS. COLI.F.CTURS AND MUSEUMS OF NOTE. NO. 55GEOLOGICAL COLLECTORS AND MUSEUMS IN CHELTENHAMA CASE HISTORY AND ITS LESSONSBY HUGH S. TORRENS AND MlCHAEb A. TAYLOR'Society is very good here - if Lords andBaronets can constitute such. I generally meet10 or a dozen of the latter and 6 or 8 of theformer every evening'! C. H. Parry October 1808[Bodleian Library Eng. Misc. d 612 p.611.INTRODUCTIONThe geological treasures of at least parts ofthe Cotswolds had already attracted seventeenthcentury collectors (Torrens 1982) but becamemore widely known with the development ofRegency Cheltenham. This was especially soafter the end of the Napoleonic Wars, whenCheltenham became a nationally andinternationally known spa attracting numerousvisitors and longer term residents (Hart 1965;Ashton 1983). William Smith (1769-1839), whosework on stratigraphical palaeontologyrevolutionised the study and search for fossils,had coloured in the geological strata on a mapof the surroundings of Cheltenham soon after itspublication in 1812 (Cox 1942, p.9). He alsodescribed a number of Inferior Oolite fossilsfrom localities in the immediate vicinity, suchas Crickley Hill (Smith 1817, pp.95, 98, 104) orDawdeswell Hill (G. d., p.107).Some of the first fossils in the Sowerbys'Mineral Concholopy, the major work on Britishfossils which was inspired by Smith'sactivities, came from the Cotswolds (e.g.Sowerby 1813, p.47). Many of these specimenswere sent to James Sawerhy hy an enthusiasticcollector named Richard Cowling Taylor(1789-1851). Taylor had been trained as a landsurveyor between July 1805 and 1811 atStaw-on-the-Wold under Edward Webb (1751-1828),as had William Smith earlier (Gents Mag. NS X,1852, pp. 201-205, 218). Taylor then became oneof Smith's pupils as well, to emphasise theclose connections between the three.These pioneers started off the long and highlyepisodic history of geological collectors andcollections in Cheltenham. This story startswith the early commercial shaps-cum-museums,formed as the first 'Cheltenham Museums' in the1810s. The Cheltenham Literary andPhilosophical Institution of 1833-1861, acharacteristic private joint-stock institution,served the upper and middle classes, and some ofthe working classes following its amalgamationwith the Cheltenham Institute in 1844-1845(13th Report CLPI, p.6). Some members of thisinstitution regrauped to form the CheltenhamWorking Naturalists' Association of 1861 (after1867 the Cheltenham Naturalists' Association).Increasing costs, decreasing interest and theimprovements in public transport had all allowedthe increasingly popular Cotteswold Naturalists'Field Club of 1846 to put paid to theInstitution. Another mid century developmentwas the foundation of the Colleges of St Pauland St Mary in 1849 (Hart 1965, p.213). Themid-Victorian Public Schools, with theirorganised Naturalists' Societies (so differentfrom Charles Darwin's earlier anarchicbug-hunting at school) are represented by one ofthe first, the Cheltenham College and itsmuseum, now completely dispersed, hut whichabsorbed most of these earlier collections.Cheltenham Ladies' College too had its ownmuseum. In the late nineteenth century andearly twentieth century new social thought andcivic legislation gave Cheltenham the presentArt Gallery and Museum, and a Teacher TrainingCollege (from the amalgamated Colleges of StPaul and St Mary) which both had - and stillhave - collections formed more or lessindependently of the earlier ones. The presentCheltenham Museum's collection was actively usedand added to in the early twentieth century butlater lapsed into disuse and neglect. It hasrecently been revived under a scheme of pastoralcuration.Thus the story of Cheltenham's geologicalcollections, with obligatory Commercial Museumsfound in such resorts, its Literary andPhilosophical Institution, and moreWorking-Class Societies, Public Schools, CivicMuseum and now a College of Further Education,repeats in one town the major themes and trendsof British provincial natural sciencecollections over the last 200 years (Allen1976; Brears 1984; Lewis 1984a, h; Foster1984). Sadly, as in so many other cases, it isalso a story of the accumulation and thenneglect, dispersal and loss of what were onceimportant collections of fossils and minerals.[Note. In what follows HST deals with allnineteenth century collections (the firstMuseums, Institution, Naturalists' Associationand Natural Science Society, Ladies College andCheltenham College's collections and theirdispersal) while MAT deals with those of thetwentieth century (including the present ArtGallery and Museum and the College of St Pauland St Mary) and discusses the lessons for thefuture to be drawn from recent pastoral curationat the Art Gallery and Museum. Far more remainsto he discovered and any information will hegratefully received by the authors, especiallyconcerning the fates of more recently disperseditems. l


Abbreviations used in this article: AMCSW, AreaMuseum Council for the South West; BM(NH),British Museum (Natural History); BRSMG,Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery; CCNHS,Cheltenham Colleee Natural Historv Societv: ..CHLGM, Cheltenham Art Galleries and Museum;CLPI, Cheltenham Literarv and PhilosophicalInstitution; CNFC, ~otteswold ~aturaiists FieldClub; a, Newsletter of the Geolo~ical<strong>Curators</strong>' Groue, laler The Gcolueical Curotor;Glos N&O, Gloucesrershire Notes and Oueries;OUM, Oxford University Museum; Revort, Reportsof the CCNHS; ~evort CHLGM, Renorts ofCheltenham Art Gallerv Subcommittee;m, Annual Reports of the CLPI.TATLOW MUSEUMBy the time Smith's discoveries were encouragingthe search for fossils in the Cotswolds,Cheltenham had become an early provincial centrefor the sale of geological material tovisitors. Smith's influence here was widelyspread before his own publications appeared(from 1815 on) through the publications ofothers and the dissemination of his ideas fromthe Bath area by word of mouth (from 1799).Apart from the active collecting of Cheltenhamfossils by people like his pupil R. C. Taylor,another Smithian geologist was busydisseminating his ideas at Cheltenham. This wasCharles Henry Parry (1779-1860) who set up inmedical practice here, from Bath, in June 1807.Following the announcement that 'coals' had beenfound in sinking a well there (Bath andCheltenham Gazette, 8 June 1814; BathChronicle, 9 June; Cheltenham Chronicle,16 June), Parry - who was well informed onSmithian geology through his father (Tarrens1979h, pp.221-222) - urged caution in attemptsto mine such 'coal' in the Cheltenham area, bothbecause of possible damage to the CheltenhamWaters and on scientific grounds (CheltenhamChronicle, 30 June 1814).As at Bath (on which many of the social stimulifor the development of Cheltenham seem to havebeen modelled), the first Cheltenham 'museums'were clearly forms of commercial speculation(Tarrens 1979b, pp. 226-227). Such operationsare often very badly recorded. The first atCheltenham may have been the 'Cheltenham Museumof Natural and Artificial Curiosities', openedin 1810 bv the Finnish artist Jacob Spornberg -(1768 - pbst 1840) (Cheltenham ~hronikle,16 August, 11 October 1810; Blake 1984a, p.14;McKechnie 1971).The first such properly geological 'museum' inCheltenham was purpose-built and opened in 1816by John Mawe (1766-1829), the mineralogist andtraveller, and his new son-in-law Anthony Tatlow(1789-1828) (Tatlow 1821) in highly fashionableMontpelier Walk, Cheltenham (Blake 1984b). BothMawe and Tatlow had come from Derbyshire(Torrens 1989) and, since Mawe's similarestablishment at 149 Strand in London was bythen flourishing, they decided, after Mawe'sdaughter Sarah Ann married Anthony Tatlow in1815, to establish a similar enterprise inFig. 1. Label (80 x 48 mm.) on the base of apaperweight supplied c.1830 by the MaweMuseum in Cheltenham (HST collection).Cheltenham. They soon had another at MatlockBath in Derbyshire (flontblv Maaazine 44, 1817,p.125).By 1823 the Mawe and Tatlow Museum was the onlyone listed in the C h e l t e n h a m y (Pigot1822, p.50), while by 1826 it was under Royalpatronage (Griffith 1826, p.283 and plate) and'an object of universal attraction'. In July1828 Tatlow died and the Museum became simplyMawe's Museum (Goding 1863, p.319). It sold awide variety of geological specimens andornamental materials as souvenirs, many made ofinlaid Derbyshire and foreign marbles, which arelisted in their advertisement in the CheltenhamJournal for 17 August 1829, p.3. One, apaperweight in HST's possession, carries theoriginal engraved label of the Museum, c.1830Fig.1) The range of goods offered for sale atMawe's shops can also be seen in the advertisingmaterial inserted at the end of Mawe (1832)issued after Mawe's death in 1829, when hiswidow Sarah Mawe (1767-1846) continued thebusiness (Davies 1834, p.166).In February 1840 their former assistant inLondon, James Tennant (1808-1881), bought outthe Mawe business in London (British Museumarchives, CE4/22 - 8 May 1840), whileWilliam Adam (c.1794-1873) and his brotherJaseph Adam (died 1870) took over the MaweMuseums in Cheltenham and Matlock in 1839(Cheltenham Looker On, 18 May 1839, p.320). Butthe Adams met with limited success financially(Ford 1973) and the Cheltenham Museum - by nowknown as the Royal Museum - was closed in 1843(Acit.,6 May 1843, p.281) and its contentssold by auction between April and October ofthat year (d.,15 April 1843, p.238; 30September 1843, p.610). It was then demolishedto make way for the Montpellier Exchange(Cheltenham, 22 July 1843, p.228).The Matlock business continued until December1850 when Highmore Rosser of Bakewell wrote totell Sir Henry de la Beche (1796-1855) of Adams'bankruptcy and of the sale, 'when it is thoughteverything will go cheap', of its contents(De la Beche archive, National Museum of Wales,Cardiff).


THE CHELTENHAM LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICALvCommercial enterprises such as these first'Cheltenham Museums', while clearly a stimulusto the study of geology, were no substitute fora proper scientific institution supported bysubscriptions. Attempts were made to promotesuch a Literary Society in 1814 byDr Edward Jenner (1749-1823) and a number ofother Cheltenham residents (Bath CheltenhamGazette, 16 February 1814) but these met withlittle success (Davies 1837; Goding 1863,p.491; Saunders 1982, pp.318-320). It was notuntil the 1830s that the nationwide popularityof natural history and allied interestsencouraged residents to establish in Cheltenham,rather late, a permanent Literary andPhilosophical Institution; planning far thebuilding began in 1833. This fine building inthe Promenade was designed by R. W. Jearrad(died 1861), built between 1835 and 1836, andformally opened on 30 August 1836 (Anon. 1837;Davies 1843, pp. 130-132).Cheltenhamians had presumably been stung intosome sort of action by notices about the town'sintellectual life like that which appeared inOctober 1828:'Cheltenham is Attica in architecture, andBoeotia in understanding. It is an elegantlyconstructed case of fashionable butterflies andevangelical beetles; it is a place where it isdeemed that the glare of gas is superior to theglory of the sun, and that man was only made toflutter or to crawl. Its society is com~osed ofthe dramatis Dersanae of Shakespeare's Tempest,- of fashionable Prosperos, nymphlike Ariels,~ ..fox-huntine Trinculos: and evangelical " ~alihans.struggling for the mastery. Reason abhors adegrading association with them; and what mightbe a Helicon insults the Muses.We have a right to be thus severe, because thereis not a literary institution in the wholeplace, and the literary-proprietors assert nowork of science is ever called for. As tointellectual matters, its stock is only that ofa book-milliner's shop, or a tabernacletract-office. The lectures of no professors,except those of music or dancing, are everattended, and it is a capital crime to be knownas a writer, and so West Indian is the slaveryof the local newspapers, that one of them fromprudent motives lately declined noticing theRev Richard Warner's excellent DamDhlet onL hEvangelical Preaching.' (Gents Mag. 98,pp.337-338).The year after the foundation of the Institutionsaw the publication of the first book devoted tothe locai geology, Outline of the Neiehhourhoodof Cheltenham by Murchison (1834). One of thefirst Honorary Members, Murchison wrote (p.6)that this book would never 'have ever seen thelight, hut for the suggestion of several membersof the Literary and Philosophical Institution ofCheltenham, who anxiously desired to commencetheir acquaintance with the Geology of the placeof their residence.' His book was dedicated to'these kind friends'.It is clear from Murchison's comments that theInstitution's museum was then still embryonic(1834, p.20):'I cannot offer a complete list of the organicremains of the lower shale of the Lias of thisneighbourhood, the study of Geology not havingyet become sufficiently popular in Cheltenham,to have induced individuals to make systematiccollections. We may, however, now indulge in ahope that in a district so very fertile infossils, some assiduous collectors will soonsupply this defect,' adding in a footnote that'the museum of the Philosophical Institution ofCheltenham, we may presume] will ere longexhibit a complete suite of the fossils of theneighbourhood. In the meantime, I may observethat S. Bendall, the intelligent chemicalassistant in Mr Thompson's manufactory of salts[Pearson Thompson (1794-1873), a Cheltenhamlawyer, entrepreneur and salts manufacturer ofNew Bath Road (Blake and Beacham 1982,pp.123-124; and Directories)], has begun tocollect in so zealous a manner, that I havelittle doubt he will soon add many undescribedspecies to our previous lists. His collectionis open to the public.'Murchison later added in a postscript (p.37)that he had since been sent fossil specimens forstudy, collected by Messrs Thompson andHoldsworth, which already belonged to theInstitution, and other specimens from the Museumof John Bendall (who is presumably related tothe S. Bendall in Murchison's notice above).S. Bendall, Baker in the Bath Road, Cheltenham,appears in Cheltenham Directories for 1839 to1841, and his Museum is also noted in an articlein the Cheltenham Annuaire of 1837 (p.33) which,however, continued by observing that Cheltenhamwas 'still without any good or well arrangedcollection of the organic remains of the area.'Copeland's article here (1837) is mainly asummary of Murchison's book (1834).Richard Comfield (1774-1842):the CLPIfirst Curator ofThere has been enormous confusion aboutComfield, Blake (1982, p.57) having wronglygiven his Christian name as Robert, while he isalso described as 'Mr W. Comfield' in acontemporary source (Cheltenham Annuaire for1837, p.131). To add to this confusion, one'J. Comfield, Cheltenham' was elected aCorresponding Member of the Botanical Society ofLondon on 6 July 1838 (Anon. 1839, p.103).Allen (1987) identified this man with theThomas Comfield found in the Directories from1839 on, as a silversmith and optician at 339High Street. Thomas Comfield (c.1810-1844),however, only set up shop in Cheltenham early in1838 (Cheltenham Ma~azine, 2, 1838, opp. p.352)and died an 31 March 1844 at the sadly early ageof 33 (Cheltenham Examiner, 3 April 1844, p.3).He was a son of Richard Comfield. Thomas's will(at Gloucester Record Office; proved 7 August1844) mentions his wife, two small children andtwo brothers, Robert Petre and John, and notesthat his freehold house at Northampton could besold by his trustees far the benefit of hisfamily. This provides a first link withNorthamptonshire where Richard Comfield wasborn. As a representative of the newly emerging


Fig. 2. Lithograph of Robert Comfield, thefirst Curator of the Cheltenham Institution,published by George Rowe in 1837. (From axerox copy of the original formerly inCheltenham Public Library but now lost!)professional curators of natural history andscience (Torrens 1987), same details of theCLPI's first Curator and his career should beput on record.Richard Comfield was baptised on 14 May 1774,the son of Thomas and Ann Comfield, atGuilsborough parish church, ten miles NNW ofNorthampton. His father Thomas (c.1739-1825)had been the master of the village Free Schoolsince 1762 (Renton and Renton 1929, p.103). Heran what was clearly an outstanding school, withthe help from 1794 of his younger son John (bornc.1780). Thomas died on 19 October 1825p.3!).(Northampton~, 29 October 1825, 25 May1900 and 1 June 1900). Richard, his elder son,ran another Academy at what became his house inthe Horsemarket, Northampton, first inpartnership with a Mr Hague from 1794 (d.,21 June 1794) and then from 1795 on his ownaccount, with Hague's widow running the boardingside of the school (po.., 10 January 1795).Richard Cornfield's wide and early interests inscience as it was then understood are quiteclear. In 1806 he became a country member ofthe London Chemical Society (Averley 1986,p.111) and in the following year he announced acourse of public botanical lectures to bedelivered at his school (v.,4July 1807). Astronomy was yet another interestand he advertised 'a fine achromatic telescope'for sale in 1811 (d.,21 September 1811).An interest in geology is also recorded by Goff(1975, p.69) who notes that ' in about 1815 aMr Comfield of Northampton forwarded pieces ofthe [Northampton Sand iron] ore toMr David Mushet. the discoverer of similardeposits in Scotland some years before'. This'rediscovery' predates the well-known one of1851 (~eave; 1951, p.34) by many years.Richard's course of lectures on NaturalPhilosophy was announced in 1820 (Northamoton&.?xuy, 22 January 1820), and this seems tohave been a feature of the school's curriculum(d.,24 July 1820). He publishedobservations, written from Northampton on 3August 1824, on the occultation of Jupiter(Comfield 1826). His second paper on astronomy(Comfield and Wallis 1826) was, however, writtenfrom Clapham near London on 9 November 1825 andhe seems to have given up his school atNorthampton then or soon afterwards (NorthamptonW, 15 July 1826). Certainly when thedeath of one of his sons was announced in 1827(d.,18 August 1827) Richard is now notedas 'late of Northampton'.He had probably already moved to Cheltenham by1827. He was certainly there by 1833, with thefoundation of the CLPI, and by 1834 is alreadynamed as its Curator when he lectured to theInstitution (now with 150 members) on optics(m 1 (5), 1834, p.376). He thereafterbecame a frequent lecturer on a wide range oftopics to the burgeoning audiences inCheltenham. In 1836 he is noted as lecturing onbotany (Cheltenham Maeazine, 1, 1836, pp.14-18),and is then named as a 'Professor of Astronomy'(op. cit., pp. 64, 93). He lectured to the CLPIon botany and astronomy in 1836 (op. cit., pp.57, 88) and was still its Curator in 1837 (op.cit., 1837, p.371) but is listed as such in theDirectories only up to 1840.David Allen paints out that the CLPI Curatorwould have joined the Botanical Society ofLondon 'to obtain specimens for theInstitution's herbarium from the Society'speriodic distributions. For out-of-town membersthis was indeed the sole point in joining'(D. E. Allen U. 31 May 1986). Comfield isshown here in a lithograph (Fig.2) by GeorgeRowe (1796-1864) produced in 1837 (CheltenhamLooker On, 6 May 1837, p.278). In 1838 he isrecorded as both Curator and Assistant Secretaryto the CLPI, (Cheltenham Annuaire for 1838,The Cheltenham Directories list him asresiding at three different addresses inCheltenham between 1837 and 1842. He died on 21April 1842 at the 'advanced' age of 66 and wasdescribed as 'formerly Curator of the CLPI formany years, as well as one of its founders andrespected for his high scientific attainments'(chiltenham Looker on, 23 April 1842, p.266;Cheltenham Examiner, 27 April 1842).From the Curator's recorded salary in 1839-1840of £30 a year (7th Report, p.19, the firsttime it is recorded), it becomes clear thatComfield could only have been the part-time,semi-retired Curator and Assistant Secretary tothe Institution. So he does not quite qualifyto join the ranks of the newly emerging, fullyprofessional curators, but he is a remarkableearly scientist who has completely escaped thenet of secondary sources.


The earlv vears of the CLPIDavid William Nash (1809-1876) was an activemember of the CLPI in its early years. He washorn in Bristol, trained at London Universityand by 1832 was an assistant surgeon in theBengal Army. He was also elected an Associateof the Linnean Society by 1837. But sometime inthe 1830s he abandoned medicine through illhealthand came to live in Cheltenham. Here hepublished on the local geology (Nash 1837a, h)and delivered 'the first course of lectures ongeology ever given in Cheltenham', at the CLPI(Guise 1877). It was he too who performed thelocal Egyptian mummy unrolling in 1842 when thecountry's Literary and PhilosophicalInstitutions were gripped with 'unrolling fever'(10th Reoort CLPI, pp.6, 10, 13; 3. Buckman tothe Secretary of the Shropshire and North WalesNatural History and Antiquarian Society, letterdated 7 October 1842 - Shrewsbury Public LibraryMSS 133). The mumy passed into the Museum atthe General Hospital (see p.182). In November1843 Nash entered the Middle Temple as abarrister and left Cheltenham, although hereturned in 1863. He died in 1876 (Times,21 July 1876).Little information is available about theInstitution in these early years, because onlyone of the first nine Annual printedfrom 1833-1834 to 1840-1841 has survived: the7th for 1839-1840. when J. W. Earle was HonorarvSecretary (CLPI collection and archives inCheltenham Public Library).The 10th Revart CLPI for 1842-1843 notes (p.7)that the Cheltenham-horn practical andoharmaceutical chemist James Buckman 11814-1884)had now been elected Honorary ~ecreta;~.Buckman is the first figure of nationalsignificance in the fieid of geology to emergefrom Cheltenham. He was Secretary and frequentlecturer to the CLPI from at least 1842 to 1845(12th ReDort CLPI, p.6). Buckman greatlystimulated the study of local geology, forminghis own fine museum and contributing a number ofpapers, first an local botany then geology (forsome of which see Austin 1928 and Royal Society1867, pp:705-706). While he was an officer ofthe Institution. his most imoortant ouhlicationsin the field of Cotswold geology wereA geoloaical chart of the Oolitic Strata of theCotswold Hills and the Lias of the Vale ofGloucester (3. Buckman 1843a) and his completerevision, . iointlv with H. E. Strickland, of>Murchison's An oitline of the eeoloev of theneiehbourhood of Cheltenham (Strickland andJ. Buckman 1844, reissued as J. Buckman andStrickland 1845). Murchison had been asked torevise his Outline in 1841, just as he wassetting out again for Russia; so he first askedHugh Strickland (1811-1853), of Craycomhe Housenear Evesham and later of Tewkesbury Lodge nearTewkeshury, to undertake any revision 'as maybest stir up the Cheltenhamians' (Jardine 1858,p.clxvii). In the event Buckman took by far thegreater part in the revision (S. S. Buckman1906). In the second edition of this hookMurchison noted in his preface (Strickland andJ. Buckman 1844, p.viii) how little geology hadbeen cultivated in Cheltenham in 1834, and howthe Literary and Philosophical 'Society' andsome of its members had now 'materially changedthe scene'.EARLY GEOLOGICAL COLLECTORS IN THE CHELTENHAMAREA (uo to 18501In the 1844 edition of Murchison's book(Strickland and J. Buckman 1844) and other earlysources the following geological collectors arementioned [an asterisk * indicates a referencein Cleevely 19831. It must be stressed thatthis list is only of local collectors active inthe first decade and a half of the Literary andPhilosophical Institution's existence, and anappearance in the list does not imply that theirmaterial actually came to its Museum, unless sostated.BENSON, Rev. R[alph] L[ewen] [c.1800-18491.Former Rector of Easthope, Shropshire; diedin Cheltenham, 23 August 1849 (see Gents Mag.,NS 32, 1849, p.548; Cheltenham Examiner, 29August 1849, p.3). In 1846 he presented'specimens of Lias and Oolite Fossils' to theCheltenham Institution' (14-15th Reoort CLPI,1848, p.9, see under Gomonde, W. H.).BINFIELD, Mr W[illiam R.]. First noted as adonor of Leckhamptan Inferior Oolite fossilsto the Birmingham Philosophical Institution in1846 (BP1 Report, 1846, p.26), this is the manrecorded in the 1848 List of Members of thePalaeontographical Society as living at RodneyTerrace in Cheltenham where he was a teacherand maker of pianos (Rowe 1845, p.ix). Hiscabinet is referred to by 3. Buckman (1850,p.418). He is also presumed to he theW. R. Binfield* whom Morris and Lycettacknowledge in their PalaeantoeraohicalSocietv Monoeraoh (Molluscs from the GreatOolite chiefly from Minchinhampton, etc.;Morris and Lycett 1851-1855, Part 2, p.42) ashaving 'assiduously collected' its fossils.By 1851 he had moved to Westhourne Grove inLondon and in this and the next two years hemade a series of donations, including Cotswoldmaterial, to the Museum of the <strong>Geological</strong>Society in London and lent material fromDumbleton and Alderton to John Morris (Morris1853, p.324). The last donation to the<strong>Geological</strong> Society was given jointly withHenry Binfield, and was of Wealden fossils, inillustration of a paper they presented in 1853(Binfield and Binfield 1854). The location ofthe main Binfield collection is not known, sothe connection with Cheltenham may hesignificant in trying to trace it.BONNER, Rev. George [c.1783-18401. In an earlylecture on comparative physiology given to theInstitution in December 1835, Dr Thomas Wrightwas able to use a small hut beautiful skeletonof the Ichthvosaurus which had been presentedto the Institution by Bonner (CheltenhamMaeazine, 2, 1837, p.45). Bonner graduatedfrom Cambridge University (Venn 1940-1954,Vol.1, ~ ~318) in 1821 and became incumbent ofSt James , Cheltenham, in 1830. He died inJune 1840 (see Gents Mag. NS 14, 1840, p.438;Cheltenham Journal, 29 June 1840, p.2).BRAVENDER, Mr [John] FGS, [1803-18781.Cirencester land surveyor and professor ofengineering and land surveying at the RoyalAgricultural College, Cirencester, 1846-1848(Bathurst and Kinch 1898, p.10). Hiscollections are thought to have gone to theAgricultural College Museum whose fate has


THECHELTENHAM LOOKER-ON;BI Aotr Book of #a$giorabk Sapilrgrl an8 Boingg.THIRD SERIES. NO. CCXXXOrlgloal Sariea,MAY 27, 1843. Price 3d.EXTENSIVE SALE OF FOSSIL OROANIG REXAINS.MR. CHARLES WOODHAS THE HONOUR TO ANNOUNCE THAT HE X'II rat11 bg 5311ctior1,(IVilhoul Rtsmr, and Dufg Free,)At the CLARENCE GALLERY, Clarcnee Street, Cheltenham, on THURSDAY anbFRIDAY, the 1st and id of JUNE next,ALL that Ulconlrc. Unique. and scry lofrrrallog Culledlon of FOSSIL ORGANIC REDIAINS,the propemor Mr. I.u." Iluorrlro, or T.,"krlbury.Tbl. klutlfd COUWLIOD, s'hlch 1% tha most Lnlerestlng rser seen in thls Neighbourllood, eanlninsman7 fine Bkelelao# 01 the irhlhyo~auru~ and PlealoanuruB, bealde. a large number of Eos8il shell^uldolhsr o.su,c %smdo,.. . .Sale to commcnce each day at Twelve to the mlclulrFig. 3. Notice of the sale of James Dudfield's collection af 'Fossil Organic Remains' in 1843 (CheltenhamPublic Library).been outlined by Tarrens (1982, pp.73-74).was a local secretary for thePalaeontographical Society in 1868.BRODIE*, Rev. P[eter] B[ellinger] [1815-18971.Curate of Down Hatherley, west of Cheltenham,1840-1853 (Venn 1940-1954, vol.1, p.389).Built up an enormous geological collectionduring his long life, which was much dispersedat a sale in 1895 (Cleevely 1983).BUCKMAN*, James [1814-1884; see also text].Honorary Secretary from at least 1842 andLecturer to the Cheltenham Literary andPhilosophical Institution until 1845. Hisdonation of eighty specimens of Fossils andMinerals in 1842-1843 to the Institution isrecorded (10th Re~ort CLPI, p.13), and his sonS. S. Buchan (in Crick 1902, p.343) confirmsthat many of his father's specimens were thenstill in the Cheltenham College Museum, havingpassed there from the Institution (seep.189). Some of his manuscripts relating tohis secretariate at Cheltenham are in thelibrary of the British <strong>Geological</strong> Survey atKeyworth (Archives 1/1183, 1842-1847).CLOSE, Miss [no information]. Probably one ofthe eight children of the importantprogressive Cheltenham cleric Rev. FrancisClose (1797-1882) (see Goding 1863,pp.145-151).COLES*, H[enry] Esq [FGS, FRCS, c.1806-18661.Surgeon of Cheltenham and dedicatee ofAmmanites colesi J. Buckman, who is firstlisted alone in the Cheltenham Directories in1839 (Annand 1971, p.35) and last in 1849. HeHejoined the <strong>Geological</strong> Society of London inDecember 1844 (U. J. C. Thackray) hut hadbeen active as a collector in Cheltenham sinceat least Septemher 1839 when he presentedspecimens to the Museum of the BristolInstitution (Bristol Records Office 32079/43,letters of September - October 1839). By 1852he had left Cheltenham and moved to LeamingtonSpa, where he was living when his paper on thesupposed skin of Ichthvosaurus (actuallycephalopad hooklets in the stomach, Moore1857), based on specimens he had earliercollected between Tewkeshury andUpton-an-Severn, was published (Coles 1853).Same of his collection may then have beensold, in April 1852, to the London dealerJames Tennant (a 2, 1977, p.41). By 1855 hehad moved to Hammersmith, having beenappointed Professor of Comparative Anatomy atthe London Hospital Medical College (Kinns1889, p.485) and was a signatory to theeffectively anti-Darwinian manifesto of 1865(Brock and Macleod 1976). He died on 3December 1866 (Cheltenham Examiner, 12December 1866, p.8). His final collection offossils was sold at auction in London on 12March 1867 (Chalmers-Hunt 1976, p.105).DUDFIELD, Mr [James] of Tewkeshury[c.1795-18581. He was an early collector ofthe Liassic ichthyosaurs and other fossils ofthe Tewkeshury area (Richardson 1846, p.119;The Geolonisy,l, 1842, p.160). Hiscollection, till then 'the most interestingever seen in the Cheltenham' neighbourhood andconsisting 'of many fine skeletons of theIchthvosaurus and Plesiosaurus besides a largenumber of fossil shells and other organic


Fig. 4. A lithograph (260 x 200 m.) of two Fossil Saurians with a vertebra and skull by 'George Rowe,lith. Cheltenham' and torn from a printed pamphlet (probably the missing sale catalogue of 1843 notedin Fig. 3) (HST collection).remains', was suddenly auctioned by CharlesWood in Cheltenham on 1-2 June 1843(Cheltenham Looker On, 27 May 1843, cover;reproduced here as Fig.3.). A report of thesale (d.,3 June 1843, pp.344-345) isgiven below (see also Tewkesburv YearlvReeister for 1840-1849 [published 18501,pp.124-125 (for 1843):'A SALE OF ORGANIC REMAINS. com~risine thesplendid collection of Mr Dudfield, orTewkesbury, took place on Thursday, at theClarence Gallery,-and, generally ;peaking, thevarious specimens obtained good prices, thecompetition for some of the rarer fossilsbeing very spirited, several Fellows of the<strong>Geological</strong> Society being present, besides mostof our local geologists. The gem of thecollection, a fine head of the Ichthyosaurus,together with a most interesting skeleton ofthis curious animal, was purchased by MrBuckman, and is, we understand, destined toenrich the museum of Ca~tain Guise. ofRendcombe Park [Sir William Vernan GuiseBart., 1816-1887, FLS FGS (Anon. 1888)l. . .Another beautiful specimen of theIchthyosaurus fell to the lot of a gentlemanof the name of Rose. The large skeleton ofthe Plesiosaurus was knocked down toMr Buckman. We are glad to find that severalof the most valuable specimens are likely tobecome the property of our own Literary andPhilosophical Institution, a fine slab ofSaurian Bones, and a number of the rarestfossils characteristic of the Lias Formation,having been purchased for the Society'smuseum, by direction of the Council, and webelieve, also, Dr Thorp, the President of theInstitution, became the purchaser of somehighly curious remains of the Hippopotamus,Elephants' Tusks, Nautili, &c. with theexpress intention of presenting them to theSociety. 'What has since become of these treasures isnot known. But the sale catalogue containedillustrations of some of the principal fossilsby the artist George Rowe, although no copyhas ever been traced. The Rowe lithographreproduced here (Fig.4, from an original oncein the Buckman family) be one from themissing sale catalogue. If so, it may help


identify the present whereabouts of the fourfigured specimens. Many of them are likely tohave been those still recorded in theCheltenham College Museum in 1937 (seep.194). The 'fine head of the Ichthyosauruswith a skeleton' purchased by Buckman in 1843was recorded as preserved in Buckman's ownMuseum by Rowe (1845, p.62) and as coming fromBrockeredge Common, near Tewkesbury. Thisseems certain to be the particular specimendiscovered and described from this locality inthe Tewkesburv Yearlv Reeister for 1841(vol.2, p.42) as found in July 1841 and sixfeet ten inches in length. The descriptionclosely matches the specimen figured here asitem two on Fig.4. This adds to thelikelihood that this plate & from the missingsale catalogue.Dudfield was the son of William Dudfield(c.1753-1832) of Bredon's Hardwick,Worcestershire (d.for 1830-1839[published 18401, 1, p.83) and was born c .1795 and baptised at Twining in 1798. Hemarried Harriot Kingsbury (c.1796-1844) atTewkesbury on 2 November 1820 and became a FOWLER*, C[harles] Esq FRCS [1797-18581.druggist in the High Street, Tewkesbury,One of the mast successful medical men inGloucestershire. His enthusiastic fossilCheltenham's heyday, surgeon at Cheltenhamcollecting from the area, especially ofGeneral Hospital 1825-1856 (Cardew 1920;Liassie saurians, was first noted in May 1840 Glover [as Contem Ienotus] 1884, pp.201-202),(Llayd 1840). His museum collection included and Curator of its Museum (Hamilton 1841,Quaternary fossils (Jardine 1858, vo1.2,p.22) which certainly later containedp. 141 ) and archaeological objects (d. geological material. His personal collection'for 1840-1849 [published 18501, 2, p.30), and is first heard of in 1840-1841, in connectionfour particularly fine saurians - threewith Quaternary vertebrates from the new1chth;osaurus and one Plesiosaurus found inBirmingham and Gloucester railway excavations1841 and 1842 are described which passed into (Jardine 1858, vol.2, p.141). G. B. Sowerbyhis collection ( d . for 1841, p.42; for1842. 0.81). There is sufficient detail to. L ,help their identification if traced insurviving collections.Dudfield was also an exhibitor at the annualmeeting of the Tewkesbury Literary, Scientificand Mechanics Institution in 1842 (d.for 1842, pp.86-87). There is no doubt thathe was also a commercial dealer supplyingsaurian remains to Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873)in Cambridge in 1842 (Sedgwick MSS, CambridgeUniversity Library, Add 7652 TD 169). Aletter to Sedgwick af 31 May 1843 (IE 49)explains Dudfield's delay in sending furtherichthyosaur material because of 'theunfortunate pecuniary circumstances in which Iam suddenly envolved (sic) [which] renders itnecessary that I should not only part with myfossils but also of everything else I have'.His bankruptcy was soon announced(Staffordshire,1 April 1843;Cheltenham and Free Press, 1 April 1843), thusexplaining the suddenness of his auction salein June.Sedgwick seems to have arranged to make somepurchases at the auction or by private treatybeforehand, for a third letter from Dudfielddated 16 June 1843 (IE 49a) announces thatSedgwick's 'beautiful saurian specimen wasforwarded tadav' to Cambridge. -. thanks Sedgwick -most sincerely for his liberality and statesthat Dudfield now had 'a prospect ofcommencing business again-under favourablecircumstances'. The Commissioner inBankruptcy in Bristol mast unusuallycongratulated Dudfield 'on the straightforwardand honourable way in which he had encounteredhis difficulties' (vE14June 1843).Dudfield now turned to farming instead andseems to have made no return topalaeontology. He did pay a dividend to hiscreditors in 1843 (Staffordshire,23 September 1843) and died on 15 October 1858at Trowborow Farm, Twyning, Gloucestershire(Tewkesburv Reeister, 23 October 1858). Hiswill (Gloucestershire Record Office) makes nomention of any further geological collection.Thomas Wright (1860, pp.392-394) providedfurther notes on the fine saurian remainsauctioned in 1843, which may help in theiridentification. A specimen of vertebrae witha paddle of an Ichthvosaurus, which stillsurvived (labelled 'Lower Lias nearTewkesbury') in the Biology Department ofCheltenham College in 1985, seems likely to bea single known survivor of this sad story.More local research is needed.(1812-1884) executed a volume of drawings forhim,Cheltenham (c.1844-1858), which survives inthe library of the British Museum (NaturalHistorv). In 1851 the Cotteswold Field Clubvisiteb his fossil collection, 'most curiousin the beauty and perfection of the specimens'(Baker 1853, 0.101). He died on 4 Mav 1858 atweston-supe;-Mare (~heltenham Looker on, 8 May1858, pp.449-450; Cheltenham Examiner, 12 May1858, pp.4, 8) but nothing was known of thesubsequent history of his collection (Cleevely1983, p.121). The MSS Minutes of theInstitution's Council for 17 November 1856 (inCheltenham Public Library) now show thatFowler, having just left Cheltenham, thenintended 'to present his collection ofgeological specimens to the Institution' andthat the Council gratefully accepted thisoffer of his 'very valuable cabinet' offossils. Dr Thamas Wright was at the sametime authorised to name and arrange it and tomake such exchanges of fossils from this andthe other collections of the Institution tomake up a complete set of local fossils. Inthis way wright could have built up his ownfine collection which already included one ofthe two types of Cidaris fowleri n. sp. whichWright had named after Fowler (Wright 1853,pp.139-141) using specimens collected byFowler. James Buckman likewise narnedAm-J. Buckman 1844).foulrriaftcr hilt, (Scrickland andLYCETT*, John LRCPE [1804-18821. Physician atMinchinhamptan c.1840-1860, and co-author orauthor of a number of important monographs onthe fossils of the Cotswolds, and a treatise


on the local geology (Lycett 1857). In 1860he moved to Scarborough in Yorkshire and thewide dispersal of his magnificent collectionof fossils from this area commenced (Glos. N.0. 2, 1884, pp.71- 72; Cleevely 1983,p.190; Cox and Arkell 1950).MURLEY, Mr C. [Rev. Charles Hemsted(1823-1873)l. Only son of a local Cheltenhamsurgeon Stephen Hemsted Murley (c.1787-1875)(Cheltenham Examiner, 3 March 1875, p.8), whobecame a Member of the Royal College ofSurgeons in 1811 and was a proprietor of theCheltenham Institution. Stephen Murley was inmedical practice in Cheltenham from 1826-1839with Henry Cales (q.v.) (Cardew 1920, pp.13,51) and it was in their private Dispensarythat James Buckman (q.v.) was firstapprenticed as a chemist and pharmacist inCheltenham (Cheltenham Looker On, 29 November1884, p.763) and 'acquired a taste forscientific pursuits'.This interest was shared byCharles Hemsted Murley who joined theBotanical Society of London as a schoolboy in1839 (Allen 1987). He or his father wasdedicatee of Ammonites murlevi J. Buckman (inMoxon 1841). Charles was horn in 1823 (Glos.N. 4, pp.114), graduated BA in 1845 and MAin 1849 at Oxford University (Foster1887-1888, vo1.3, p.998) and entered theChurch. He died on 28 September 1873(Cheltenham Examiner, 1 October 1873, p.8).Hiscollection had passed to OxfordUniversity Museum by 1843 (Phillips 1865-1909,p.66, p1.13). It is listed in the Museum'sfirst manuscript donations book (OUM archives)as 'Cheltenham Fossils Mr Murley 1843 -unpacked H. E. S[trickland] 1852'.STRICKLAND*, H[ugh] E[dwin] [1811-18531.Co-author with James Buekman (1844, 1845) ofthe revision of Murchison's Geoloev of ...Cheltenham (see p.179; Jardine 1858). Hismain geological collection is in the SedgwickMuseum, University of Cambridge.WITTS*, Rev E[dward] F[rancis] [1813-18861.Keen collector from the Eyford quarries nearStow-on-the-Wold, and also a botanist. Hisfather's diaries, in part published (Verey1978), are a wealth of information on theVictorian scene in Gloucestershire. Much ofEdward's geological collection was presentedto Gloucester City Museum in 1963 (Savage1963), and the Department of Geology,University of Bristol, appears to hold theremainder.Three further less well known contributors tothese Cheltenham Institution collections up to1844 are recorded:BODLEY, Thomas (of Cheltenham) [fl. 1828 -£1. 18581. The dedicatee of AmmonitesBuckman, 1844, hut not named as acollector by Strickland and J. Buckman(1844). He is first heard of as a subscriberto the second edition of Young and Bird's bookan the Gealagv of Yorkshire (1828). He waselected a Fellow of the <strong>Geological</strong> Society on28 March 1832 when he was still 'of Brighton'(Proc. zeal. Soc. Lond. 1, 1832, p.425). Hedonated two trays of 'very interesting fossilsfrom the Chalk Formation' (12th Renort CLPI,1845, p.14) to the Institution in 1844 or1845. He is also named as a local collectorin 1856 by Wright (1857-1878, p.viii) andexhibited fossils at the British Associationmeeting in Cheltenham that same year (seebelow). A letter in CLPI archives dated29 July 1857 from the Lake Hotel, Grasmere,records that he wished to continue as asubscriber to the Institution despite his'very advanced age'. He resigned from the<strong>Geological</strong> Society in 1858 (ex. inf.J. C. Thackray).SCOTT, Miss (of Cheltenham). In an earlier listof fossils found near Cheltenham,James Buckman (1843b) mentions the cabinet ofa Miss Scott, of whom nothing further is known.BELL, Capt. Henry [1803-18871. On 3 December1842 the Rev. Francis Edward Witts(1783-1854; father of E. F. Witts mentionedabove) recorded a visit to the Institution.After observing that it did not yet seem 'tobe very well supported' and had a museum 'butslenderly provided with objects of curiosity orinterest', he noted the presence of 'a good manygeological and fossil specimens especially aseries from the coal field of Northumberlandpresented by Capt. Bell' (Witts 1842). Thisdonation by Capt. Henry Bell (1803-1887) ofWoolsington, Northumberland (then of Chal.fontLodge, Leckhampton, Gloucestershire), shows thatthe collection was never just of local Jurassicmaterial.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLPI'S GEOLOGICALCOLLECTIONSAs the great majority of the CLPI's Annualprinted before 1842 cannot be traced,little is known of the CLPI collections for thisperiod. Thomas Wright (see below) was clearly amajor early stimulus, giving CLPI lectures oncomparative physiology in 1835 and on FossilZoology in 1838 (Cheltenham Maeazine, 2,pp.379-383; Bell 1981). Even by 1842 the CLPIdoes not seem to have paid particular attentionto geology (see above sub H. Bell). An ArtGallery Exhibition was a special feature of CLPlactivity in 1841 (Hamilton 1841, p.34: Blake1982, pp.13, 59).Things changed in 1842 when Buckman could writeto Sedgwick that 'we have recently had a courseof lectures on geology by Mr Richardson of theBritish Museum and he so agreeably popularisedthe subject that we can now muster a largegeological party at Cheltenham' (Sedgwick MSSID 171, late 1842). This refers to the firstcourse given in Cheltenham byGeorge F. Richardson (1796-1848) in September1842 (Torrens and Cooper 1986, pp.260-261; a'copy of the previously untraced Svllahus for hiscourse survives in the G. B. Greenough archive,University College, London). The encouragementof Cheltenham geology continued in 1844 with thefirst publication of the major revision ofMurchison's book (Strickland and J. Buckman1844). With the survival of all the printedAnnual Re~arts of the Institution from 1845onwards we are able to say a good deal more ofthe later history of the Museum.


. .Tbc ChallooLun Llomw and Ehilo~o~hrri IoruiuUonFig. 5. An engraving of the CheltenhamInstitution published in 1845. The 'politesociety' shown outside soon allowed thebuilding to be demolished (Cheltenham PublicLibrary).-It was in 1845, during Gomonde's Presidency,that the CLPI sent a deputation to the BritishAssociation for the Advancement of Sciencemeeting at Cambridge. The deputation includedThomas Bodley and went with the intention ofgetting the BAAS to meet in Cheltenham in 1846(CLPI archives, letter of 24 June 1845). Butthe overture was not finally successful as theInstitution later felt unable to give the BAAS'an adequate reception'. It met instead atSouthampton (Renort of BAAS, 16, 1846, p.xviii).The nominal bearers of the title of Curator areamongst the least known dramatis uersonae of theInstitution. From the annual salaries paid in1844 - Curator £40 and Assistant Curator £23-1-0- they were still clearly little more thanjanitors or clerks. The curator in 1841-1844was James Blakie (CLPI Accounts and Vouchers for1841-1845, Chelt. Publ. Lib.). By 1845-1846 thecurator's salary was £52 per annum (13thm, p.31).The Institution was noticed thus in February1845, after its first decade (Rowe 1845, p.18)in the building illustrated in Fig.5:The first President of the Literary and'The LITERARY AND PHILOSOPHICAL INSTITUTIONPhilosophical Institution was Dr Henry(opened 1833) now demands attention, but theCharles Boisragon (c.1770-1852) (Bell 1981) gave crowded situation of the building prevents thethe Inaugural Address published in 1833beautiful proportions of the portico from being(Boisragon 1833) but is not known to have taken fully appreciated; and we may remark, aany particular interest in geology. He was -, that erections of this kind usuallyfollowed by Dr Disney L. Thorp who purchased lose very much of their beauty when thus set upgeological specimens for the Institution'sand confined amongst modern houses and shops.Museum at the Dudfield auction (see above).This portico is a model of one of the ends ofThe next President, elected in March 1845, was the justly-celebrated Temple of Theseus atWilliam Henry Gomonde (c.1803-1863) (Cheltenham Athens. Its peculiar appropriateness to theLooker on, 26 September 1863, p.626). He present use will be admitted, when we considergraduated BA at Oxford University in 1825. He the Attic King in the relation of one of theis best known as an antiquary (Austin 1928, p.5) founders of Ancient Greek civilization, and thebut again was a significant geological collector originator of the popular form of government.and the dedicate of the fossil gastropod Turbo In after years, his admiring countrymen gatheredgomondei n. sp. (Morris and Lyeett 1851-1855, his bones from their exile-grave, to bury thempp.66-67). The authors of this species note with national honors in the magnificentthat they were allowed to use his collection of temple-tomb which hears his name. TheOolite fossils. This collection has notInstitution was formed for "the Cultivation ofpreviously been traced (Cox and Arkell 1950, Literature and Science, and the Preservation ofp.xxii) but Lias and Inferior Oolite material such works of Art as tend to illustrate theand Silurian specimens from Malvern were all progress of Discovery and Civilization." Todonated to, and in part arranged by Gamonde for, effect these desirable objects, Public Lecturesthe Cheltenham Institution (14th Reoort CLPI, and Readings are delivered during the Session,pp.8-9) in 1846. A letter in the CLPI archives which extends from September to May, works offrom Gomonde to the Secretary dated 23 April Art and Science, subjects of Natural History,1846 records this presentation 'of an almost Antiquities etc. are deposited; a Librarycomplete series of the fossils of the Inferior established, and a Reading-room for the use ofOolite from the immediate neighbourhood ofthe subscribers. The building was erected underCheltenham ... and I also beg to state that the the superintendence of R. W. Jearrad, Esq., theRev. R. L. Benson of 12 Pitteville Paradetalented architect of the Queen's Hotel, Christ[q. v.] has through me sent some fossils from Church, and other buildings which adorn thethe same stratum as also others from the upper town. It contains a spacious and elegantand lower Lias'. Brodie (1850, ~ ~245) refers to lecture room, museums, reading room, laboratory,this choice Inferior Oolite materlal whichoffices etc., with a residence for the curator.Gomonde had obtained from Leckhampton. Gamonde The Institution consists of Proprietors,was elected a Fellow of the <strong>Geological</strong> Society Ordinary Members, and Life and Honoraryof London in 1852 (ex.. 3. C. Thackray) but Members. The affairs are managed by a Councilseems to have later returned to hisof ten Proprietors, five Ordinary Members, thearchaeological work; his library andPresident, two Vice-Presidents, Secretary, andantiquarian collections (comprising onlyTreasurer. Each department of the Museums isarchaeological material) were auctioned inunder the charge of a Curator; and that devotedCheltenham soon after his death (Cheltenham to Geology is particularly rich in specimens. ALooker, 21 November 1863, p.747; 28 November permanent Library of Reference far general use1863, p.769). has been established in connexion with thisInstitution.'


The known contents of the Museum to this datecertainly bear out the early attention paid togeological material by the membership.In 1846 Henry Clifton Sorby (1826-1908), thepioneer of the microscopic study of rocks,visited Cheltenham and what must have been theMuseum of the Institution (Bishop 1984,pp.76-77). Such visitors will have furtherpublicised the contents and value of the Museum.Another development in 1846 was of mare ominoussignificance for the future of the CheltenhamInstitution: the formation of the first FieldClub in the Cotswolds. This arose from thatsocial innovation of the previous decade,1836-1846, the coming of the railways (Clinker1964), which had major effects on both theInstitution and the study of geology in thearea. The new railways yielded an enormousnumber of new sections to supplement thoseprovided by building operations in the richlyfossiliferous local Jurassic rocks ofCheltenham, as well as the means by which thegeologists could reach these sections to studythem. Excavation of the Great Western Railwaybranch line from Gloucester to Cheltenhamyielded Liassic fossils which the residentengineer, Richard Boxall Grantham FGS(1805-1891) presented, with other specimens, tothe <strong>Geological</strong> Society of London between 1839and 1842 (see 'Lists of Donations' inpublications of the <strong>Geological</strong> Society).The new social mobility provided by the railwayshad other results, for the CotteswoldNaturalists' Field Club, newly founded in 1846,was soon to take over and expand the originalrole of the CLPI in the local encouragement ofnatural science (Torrens 1982), notably in theorganisation of field trips. From 1846 onwardsthe days of the CLPI were clearly numbered bysuch competition, as happened elsewhere for muchthe same reasons (Allen 1976). The CNFC,founded to study the 'Catteswald district andits neighbourhood', is one of the first Britishlocal natural history and archaeologicalsocieties which superseded these earlier'Institutions'. Its history has been related byLncy (1888) and Fletcher (1946). Its foundermembers included Thomas Wright and Sir ThomasTancred (after whom the Jurassic bivalveTancredia is named). Several important donorsto collections in Cheltenham, notably LinsdallRichardson to CHLGM, used the Club's Proceedingsas a vehicle for their researches. Othermembers at various times included P. B. Brodie,3. Lycett, R. Etberidge and both James andSydney Buckman. The Club specifically decidednot to form a museum of its own and so anydonations made to it (such as the CornfordCollection; see p.201) were promptly passed onto local museums.At about the same time as the CNFC was founded,problems of finance started to emerge at theCLPI. Already in 1845 'the funds arising fromAnnual Subscriptions and other sources barelysufficed for the current expenditure of theInstitution' (12th ReDort CLPI, p.11) and thiswas to become a recurrent theme. By early 1846the Institution's dynamic geologist/botanistJames Buckman had left to become Secretary andCurator to the Birmingham PhilosophicalInstitution (13th ReDort CLPI, pp.4, 12),starting his new career as a professionalscientist (Torrens 1988a). A potentialreplacement was Robert Etheridge (1819-1903) whobecame a new CLPI Subscriber in 1845 (d.p.16) and joined its Council in 1846 (14thReDort CLPI, p.5). He was then a partner in adrapery business with his brother in thePromenade. His meteoric rise as a geologistsoon afterwards elsewhere was clearly in greatmeasure inspired by the Cheltenham Institution,and Messrs Buckman and Wright's own examples(Gheltenham Looker On, 26 December 1903,p.1289). But he was soon appointed Curator ofthe Bristol Institution, in January 1851 (Crane1985, p.181, before becoming in 1856 one of theassistant naturalists at the Museum of PracticalGeology in London (Flett 1937, p.69) - havingjoined, like Buckman, the new generation ofprofessional scientists. Etheridge continuedhis connection with Cheltenham by regular returnvisits to the town as a lecturer and as a guideto the local geology in the field. It was thisknowledge of Cotswold geology which had soimpressed Murchison and was instrumental ingetting Etheridge his post in London (Geikie1875, v01.2, p.259).With two such significant defections from theranks of Cheltenham geology, its core hadcertainly now been significantly disrupted.The first local Secretary (June 1847) of thenewly formed Palaeontographical Society was theCheltenbam surgeon Walter Cary. By June 1851 hewas replaced by Thomas Wright(Palaeontographical Society archives).The next CLPI President, elected in 1847, wasthe most famous geologist to have been connectedwith Cheltenham, Dr Thomas Wright (1809-1884),who was a surgeon at the local hospital (Glos.N. 3, 1887, p.662; Bell 1981). Wrightproudly proclaimed his presidency on the titlepage of his first geological publication in bookform, the third edition of G. F. Richardson's(1796-1848) textbook which Wright enlarged andrevised under the title of An introduction toWbgy (Richardson 1851). Wright's firstpublications, befitting a medical man, were inthe field of comparative anatomy. Hiscontributions to stratigraphy and palaeontologybegan in 1850 (Midlands Naturalist, 7, 1884,pp.341-344), and his contributions to Cotswoldgeology were mostly published in the Proceedinesof the Cotteswold Naturalists' Field Club andthe Monoera~hs of the Palaeantoera~hical%s&y. Prior to his Presidency, Wright hadlong been a lecturer to the CLPI, and - as wehave seen - was also engaged in the curation ofthe Institution's collection. But more and moreafter 1850 the focus of his activities moved tothe national, rather than local, level and theCLPI became more peripheral to him. However,Wright did act as the local Cheltenham Secretaryfor the Palaeontographical Society from1851-1870. The marvellous personal fossilcollection he made was dispersed by the dealerF. H. Butler (Cleevely 1983, p.319). It wasoffered for sale soon after his death throughhis old friend Robert Etheridge ([Etheridge1884]), when it was noted to contain about16,000 specimens but with no detailedcatalogue. It contained all the specimensfigured in Wright's Monoera~hs. It was snappedup and then dispersed by Butler.


1'ThomasSale at hisJenkinsBEGS to inform the Scientific Public, that he has onANTEDILUVIAN REPOSITORYLECKHAMPZON ROAD. CHELTENHAMA lame and interesting Collection of FOSSIL REMAINS-His Specimens of SAURIAIJS, and of the rarer Shellsfrom the Lias and Oolite of the Vicinity, are wellworthy of the attention of Collectors.. J. also deals in Old Coins, Tokens, RomanPottery,and Archaeological Curiosities in general.'(Cheltenham Looker On, 9 August 1856, p. 764)Fig. 6. A receipt dated September 1851 forfossils bought by Thomas Wright for theInstitution from the dealer Thomas Jenkinsof Leckhampton (Cheltenham Public Library).From about 1850 the main method of adding to theMuseum's collection of fossils seems to havebeen by purchase (e.g. 17th - 20th Reaortsm). The receipt for one of these survives(Fig.6) to demonstrate the involvement of bothThomas Wright as purchaser and oneThomas Jenkins (c.1793-1868) as vendor. Jenkinswas paid to 'clean' fossils in the CLPI~ollection as early as April 1846 (letter ofW. H. Gomonde, 23 April 1846, CLPI Archives) andearlier, on 22 October 1842, Jenkins was paid10s 3d from the CLPI Museum account for'arranging fossils' (CLPI Accounts 1841-1845).THE JENXINS FAMILY:CHELTENHAMCOMMERCIAL DEALERS INThomas Jenkins is the Cheltenham dealer whocontinued the tradition of selling geologicalspecimens started in Cheltenham by John Mawe andAnthony Tatlow. Mawe and Tatlow's originalestablishment had been sold up in 1843, whileJenkins was based at Leckhampton. He is firstheard of at Leckhampton in 1842 when Buckman(1842, p.60) mentions Mr Jenkins' 'Antediluvianand Fossil Remains' repository, and its 'mosthonest and intelligent' proprietor as havinginterests in botany, geology and antiquities.The first is explained by Jenkins beingessentially a market gardener who also dealtcomercially in fossils and antiquities. In1851, the year of the above sale to theCheltenham Institution, the CotteswoldNaturalists' Field Club also visited thisLeckhampton dealer (Baker 1853, p.101).In 1856 both Jenkins and his son William(c.1828-1882) contributed to the temporary<strong>Geological</strong> Museum set up in the CLPI for thebenefit of those attending the BritishAssociation for the Advancement of Sciencemeeting held in Cheltenham in August 1856 (Anon.1856, p.14; see p.187). At the same time theyinserted the advertisement transcribed below(Cheltenham Looker On, 9 April 1856, p.764) inthe hope of sales to the 1,109 delegates (Anon.1856, p.8).One result of this advertisement may have beenthe sale of an Ichthvosaurus sp. to the Museumof Practical Geology in 1856 (Rolfe d. 1988,p.147). P. B. Brodie (1858, p.88) noted that'many of the characteristic fossils of theCotswolds may he purchased at a moderate rate ofJenkins, a nurseryman on the right hand side ofthe road leading to Leckhampton' fromCheltenham. Between 1857 and 1860 Jenkins madefurther frequent sales to the Museum ofPractical Geology in London (Cleevely 1983,p.164), probably through the intercessionoftheir recently arrived assistantRohert Etheridge, late of Cheltenham.Jenkins' portrait was painted in 1856 by thesixteen year old Briton Riviere (1840-1920) in acharacteristic pose with Upper Lias ammonite(Fig.7; Cheltenham Art Gallery coll. P 1919,209 A) (see Herdman 1931, p.24). He died in1868 (buried 7 Octoher 1868, aged 75;Leckhampton Burial Register, Glos. Record OfficeIN 1117) and his son William in 1882 (buried 18February 1882, aged 54). Fossil Street inLeckhampton is thought to derive its name fromtheir activities. William continued to supplyfossils until at least 1877 when he supplied thepresumed original of Ammonites cheltiensisMurcbison, 1834, to the British Museum (NaturalHistory) (BMNH C74955a - see Spath 1938,pp.46-47, pl.1, fig.3; Phillips 1987, p.58).In 1947 a grandson of William (A. H. W. Jenkinsof Surhiton) offered a number of his Cheltenhamfossils, still wrapped in 1870's newspapers, toCheltenham Town Museum (letter dated 8 July 1947in CHLGM archives) but it is not known if theofEer was ever taken up.To illustrate that purchasing scientificallyaccurate fossils from dealers can be a hazardousactivity, Jenkins must he implicated in theproblems of the hrachiopod subspecies Waldheimavar. leckham~tonensis WalkerDavidson, 1878 (vo1.4, p.185). This hrachiopodwas claimed to originate from the LeckhamptonInferior Oolite when in fact it had come fromthe Great Oalite of the Bath area (S. S. Buckman1899, p.9). Jenkins' part in the story isdocumented in a letter from Charles Upton (died1927) to J. W. Tutcher (1858-1951) of 6 March1922 (copy in BRSMG Geology File TUT 61/15).Upton was curator at Gloucester Museum whichthen had same of these ssp. leckhamotonensisbrachiopods from the collection of John Jones(c.1818-1881) of Gloucester. He believed thatthese and other specimens formerly in theCheltenham Institution and Museum of PracticalGeology were all 'introduced' to the Leckhampton


'<strong>Geological</strong> Museum - superior in itspalaeontological value to any ever offered tothe contemplation of the Association whether asit regarded the variety and beauty of thespecimens or the classification and thescientific arrangement of the parts' (Anon.1856, p.5). The exhibitors included thefollowing contributors of local material whichremained on exhibition in the Institution until15 September 1856 (Minutes of CLPI):Fig. 7. The portrait of 63 year old ThomasJenkins, holding an Upper Lias ammonite,painted in 1856 by 16 year old BritonReviere (Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum).fauna by Jenkins. Upton reported that Walkerpaid Jenkins particularly high prices for 'rarebrachiopads'!THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION VISIT OF 1856 AND ITSAFTERMATHAs far back as 1845 Cheltenham and itsInstitution had set up a Committee to encouragethe British Association for the Advancement ofScience to consider Cheltenham as a possiblevenue for its annual meeting (12th Report CLPI,1 ) But by the time their approach wassuccessful the Cheltenham Institution was inserious financial trouble and the BritishAssociation's visit in August 1856 was hosted byan Institution already on the verge ofextinction. The 23rd Re~ort CLPI far 1855-1856reported that the Institution's revenue wassimply insufficient to meet expenditure andhoped that the British Association's visit wouldgive a 'healthy impulse to the cultivation ofthe Institution's studies'. The visit didindeed prove a healthy stimulus hut in theclimate prevailing in Cheltenham at that time,only a wholly temporary one.The printed Reports of the Local Committees forthe visit (Anon. 1856) show that they had beenbath diligent and successful in raising financeand exhibits far the many visitors. Inparticular, to emphasise the many features ofspecial interest that the Cheltenham area heldfor geologists, a Sub-committee made up ofThomas Wright (Director), theRev. Robert Hepworth (c.1800-1891),Robert Etheridge, and James Scougall, wassuccessful in forming and arranging a temporaryJ[ames] AGG-GARDNER, Esq [c.1805-1858; Lord ofthe Manor of Cheltenham since 1843; Hart19651 'Fossil Elephant's Teeth, and Septaria -from Cheltenham district.'Thomas BODLEY Esq, FGS (see p.183) -'Carboniferous Plants, Oxford ClayAmmonites, Lias Reptilia, Fishes and Shells.'Rev. P. B. BRODIE MA FGS (see p.180) - 'LiasInsects and Corals.'Mr Thomas JENKINS (see p.186) - 'Reptilia fromthe Lias, Shells from the Oolite, andElephant's Teeth from the Gravel - fromCheltenham district.'Mr William JENKINS (see p.186) - 'Bane of asupposed Mammalian Quadruped, fram theInferior Oolite, and Shells from the InferiorOolite.'John JONES, Esq (see p.186) - 'Silurian Shellsand Corals; Oolitic Shells and Corals.'5th Earl of DUCIE, [C. H. B. MORETON (1827-1921)of Tortworth Court; see Cleevely 1983, p.2081- 'Silurian Shells and Corals, CarhaniferousShells and Corals - from Tortworth district.Oolite Fish, Echinoderms, and Corals - fromWindrush.'Charles PIERSON Esq (see p.189) - 'A beautifulJaw of the Palaeotherium medium Cuvier fromthe Isle of Wight. Reptilia and Fishes fromthe Lias, Shells from the Inferior Oolite, afine and nearly perfect Skeleton ofIchthyosaurus, and a series of Shells from theOolites of Harcaurt, and Vaches Noires,Calvados [France].'Miss [Ann Taylor] SLATTER (see Cleevely 1983,p.267) - 'A collection of Corals from theGreat Oolite.'Rev F. W. WITTS [m E. F.] MA FGS (see p.183)- 'A fine collection ofFish teeth, Shells, Insects, Wings andEchinoderms - from the Stonesfield slate ofEyeford, Gloucestershire.'Tbomas WRIGHT MD FRSE (see p.185) - 'Shells fromthe Great Oolite; Shells and Corals fram theInferior Oolite; a fine unique collection ofthe Echinodermata of the English Oolite Rocks,containing all the Type Specimens figured inhis Monograph on British OoliteEchinodermata; Shells from theGloucestershire Lias, and a fine series ofAmmonites from that formation; Shells,Trilobites, and Corals, from the SilurianRocks of the May Hill district; and a fineseries of the Cephalopoda, fram the Oolites ofWurttemberg. The above series formed nearlyone-half of the whole collection.'A collection of fossils was purchased fromthose exhibited 'under the advice of DrWright' for the permanent collections of localgeology at the Cheltenham Institution (Anon.1856, p.18) - the 'formation of which hadredounded so much to the honour and scientificreputation of the town.' In addition othernon-Cotswold material was exhibited by thefollowing:


M. ALEX Esq.The Bristol Institution and its then curatorRohert ETHERIDGE, late of Cheltenham (seep.185)William CUNNINGTON Esq., FGS, of DevizesDr Ralph Barnes GRINDROD FGS of MalvernCharles MOORE FGS of Bath.Yet another Cheltenham collector of this period,not listed above, is:TARTT, William Macdowall (c.1787-1881) JP ofCheltenham. Wright (1856, p.viii)acknowledged the use of his collection in hiswork on Oolitic Echinodermata. Tartt was apoet and essayist of Gatacre, near Liverpool,from 1820 to 1832 (National U& Cataloeue;Boyle 1967, pp.284-285). By 1841 he wasliving at Lyme Regis and was then electedMayor (Hutchins 1863, "01.2, p.49) - where hesurely acquired an interest in geology? By1848 he had moved to Cheltenham and joined theCLPI (14-15th Revort CLPI, p.29). Hepublished volumes of Memoirs (1868) and(1876) and died in Cheltenham in 1881('&m, 28 December 1881, p.1). His will,proved in 1882 (Gloucester Record Office),makes no reference to his fossil collection(whose fate remains unknown) hut books andmanuscripts were left to his sister-in-law.The Cheltenham College Donations book recordshis gifts of coins and antiquities in1873-1874.After the British Association's visit, theminutes of the Institution show that MessrsThomas Wright, T. W. Norwood and Charles Piersonwere particularly active in running the Museumduring these last few years. The survivingreceipts (CLPI vouchers for 1858, CheltenhamPublic Library) include one in Thomas Wright'scharacteristic hand for 7 shillings for 'a slabwith and spines from the Coral Rag',showing that the Museum was being added to untilat least this date. It is also clear howclosely Wright was involved with the Institution(Bell 1981, p.34) and its geological collection(in a 'symbiotic' association with his ownhighly significant geological collectian, byexchange).But less than a month after the BritishAssociation had departed, one visitor who hadcome with the Association (quite probablyHenry Cales, late of both Cheltenham andLeamington) wrote a letter to the CheltenhamExaminer (10 September 1856, p.3) on the'Extinction of the Philosophical Institution'.This bemoaned the final failure to supportscientific institutions of the 'two mostfashionable towns in England - the King andQueen of watering places, Leamington andCheltenham'. That at Leamington had closed andthat at Cheltenham was 'about to be closed'.The writer blamed the local gentry for failingto support the Institution and concluded that'the disgrace accompanying the extinction of theCheltenham Philosophical Institution must fallnot on the managers but on the wealthyinhabitants of the town'.This visitor proved very prescient, if anly alittle premature. Thanks to the survival of themanuscript minutes of the CLPI (in CheltenhamPublic Library) for 1854-1860 (only) this finalextinction can be accurately charted. The 24thRevort CLPl noted that the meeting of theBritish Association at Cheltenham had indeedbeen 'attended with brilliant success yet it didnot produce to this Institution those resultswhich were anticipated'. Receipts for the fouryears 1853-1854 to 1856-1857 had progresseddownwards from £251, £257, £236 to anly £190, sothat the continued working of the Institutionbecame an impossibility, and the Councilexpressed much regret that within a year of theBritish Association's visit 'an Institutionwhich has endeavoured to diffuse a taste forLiterature and Science should he allowed tolanguish and die for want of support.'In the next CLPI (25th) for 1857-1858 theincome was still only £190 but the current debtwas nearly £200. This was reduced by donationsto £65 but there still remained a debt of £1,250to redeem the mortgage on the Institution'sbuilding! In the 26th Report CL1 for 1858-1859it was ominously noted that 'rumours respectingthe future of the Institution have damaged it'.The 27th CLPI for 1859-1860 records thereplacement as Hon. Secretary of Thomas Williams(elected in 1846) by Henry Davies (1804-1890), alocal printer and publisher. Only 102subscribers are listed in this final Re~ort CLPIwhich states that the Council was compelled toadmit the possibility that their successors mayhave to dissolve the society 'which for sevenand twenty years has struggled to obtain forCheltenham a recognition in the world ofLiterature and Science'. In the manuscriptcontinuation minutes Henry Davies' wish toretire as Hon. Secretary on 12 March 1860 isnoted. He was replaced by theRev. Thomas Wilkinson Norwood (1829-1908) at theAnnual General Meeting on the following day.But Norwood could do no better and at a specialgeneral meeting held on 3 September 1860 (thelast recorded) the Council recommended that theproperty of the Institution should he handedover to the Proprietors for its disposal.Norwood was appointed curate of St Paul's,Cheltenham, in 1855 (Venn 1940-1954, vo1.4,p.570) and admitted as a member of the CLPI in1856, and a Fellow of the <strong>Geological</strong> Society in1859. He clearly had an impossible task intaking an the Honorary Secretaryship at thistime. He left Cheltenham for Chelsea in 1867but he was much mare successful as a geologicalcollector (see Woodward 1894, p.517, and Gill1903, p.114 where his fine collection, from 1878at Wrenbury in Cheshire, is particularlynoted). He died in 1908 (Anon. 1908) when, a8shown below, a major part of his collection thenreturned to Cheltenham College.The demise of the Institution in 1860-1861 isrecorded by Goding (1863, pp.551-552), Hart(1965) and Bell (1981). The CLPI archives shedmuch light on this sad story. When theProprietors resolved to sell the Institution,the Cheltenham Improvement Commissioners evenoffered to purchase the building for £2,150 ifthe balance of £350 on the f2,500 the buildinghad realised at auction could be raised. Theidea was to use the building for a PublicLibrary, etc. But as a CLPI subscriber,James Robert Campbell (c.1802-1861),mineralogist and concholagist, had written 'theyare an abominably stingy set here [Cheltenham],


that is a fact' (Matheson 1964, p.223) and themoney could not be found! The Bill for theremoval of the Museum and Librarv from theInstitution in November 1861 surGives. Themagnificent building was then demolished andreplaced by shops which, with a let of upwardsof f150 a year, showed a 300X appreciation oncapital value for the speculators involved!History here reveals some truly Victorianvalues! The CLPI records include a file of'papers relating to the dissolution of theInstitute 1861' but are mainly involved withlegalities. The collections, and library, ofwhich a printed catalogue of 67 pages dated 1849exists, were then apparently put into inadequatestorage. The books were presented to theCheltenham Library in 1873 by the trustees ofthe Institution (MSS Catalogue in CLPIarchives), while the Museum collections werelater transferred to the Cheltenham CollegeMuseum which opened in 1870 (see below).IHE CHELTESHAM WORKING NATURALISTS' ASSOCIATIONAND THE CHELTL'NIIAY NATURAI.ISTS' ASSOCIATIONThe Cheltenham Working Naturalists' Associationwas founded on 7 November 1861 (Riddlesdell andAustin 1919), after the collapse of the CLPI.The Secretary was the botanistWilliam Lowndes Notcutt (1819-1868) andbotanical work seems to have been theAssociation's main priority (Riddlesdell et.1948, p.cxxviii). However, the original members(Austin 1928, p.225) did include one geologicalworker, the Rev. T. W. Norwood, who, as we haveseen, built up a fine collection ofGloucestershire fossils while living inCheltenham from 1855 to 1867 (Anon. 1908).In 1867 a new Cheltenham Naturalists'Association was founded by amalgamation withthis earlier and by now neglected WorkingNaturalists' Association (Eliot 1871, p.201).One of the declared aims of the new Associationwas to 'promote, spread, and foster a knowledgeof. and interest in eeoloev'. -. This Associationdeposited its collecrions, including geologicalmaterial, in the Cheltenham College Museum in1870 (see below).THE CHELTENHAM COLLEGE MUSEUMCheltenham College, a Church of England publicschool (still flourishing today) was founded in1841. In 1868 the Rev. Thomas William Jex-Blake(1832-1915) was appointed Principal. He was afirm believer in the educational value of thestudy of nature, and his single (but important)innovation was to urge the creation of a schoolmuseum. In the words of the school's historian(Morgan 1968, pp.57-58, 75):'In 1870 one of the original rackets courts wasconverted into a museum. Barry bad cherishedthe idea of a museum and Southwood and severalmembers of the Council were strong in support.They thought "it would tend to interest thepupils in the study of Science and NaturalHistory, while at the same time it would providean attractive and useful recreation during theirplayhaurs." Jex-Blake agreed with this from hisRuskinian point of view and lent his support.The Council gat from the Trustees of theCheltenham Literary and PhilosophicalInstitution a large collection of fossils; fromthe Chel~enham Naturalists' Society [actuallythe Association. see above1 'a fine collectionof fossils, minerals and other objects" oncondition that the museum was open to the publicone day a week; and from Mr Charles Pearson[sic] "his large and valuable collection of<strong>Geological</strong> Specimens." The Council was able toreport on 6 December that the museum "containsmany valuable specimens representing Geology,Mineralogy, Conchology, in a very complete form,also Botany, Numismatics, Mathematical andChemical Apparatus, Natural History, TechnicalScience, and objects of antiquity andcuriosity."'Charles Piersan (c.1806-1891; wrongly calledPearson by Morgan 1968) had been one of themainstays of the Cheltenham Institution in itslast years and was one of the organisers andexhibitors at the temporary geological museumexhibited at Cheltenham for the BritishAssociation in 1856 (see p.187). His main fieldof interest was geology and it is known that hiscollection of fossils (which included Frenchmaterial; Wrigbt 1856, p.314) was available farpublic inspection at his home, 3 BlenheimParade, Cheltenham (Pierson 1858). At the sameperiod, Pierson was also one of the Directorsand most devoted friends of Cheltenham College,from 1856 to 1862. After the school'sreorganisation he became a triennial member ofthe College Council, from 1862 to 1883 (Hunter1911, pp.14, 17; Cheltenham Examiner, 4 March1891, pp.4, 8; Cheltenham Looker On, 23 June1883).Being closely involved with both the now defunctInstitution and the College, Pierson seems tohave been the main instigator of the transfer ofthe old collections of the CheltenhamInstitution to the College in 1870. Exactlywhat was transferred is not certain but it seemsto have comprised the entire contents, includingimportant archaeological material(C. I. Gardiner b m. to James Eyre, 15August 1930 and 6 October 1930, Liverpool Museumarchives; W, 14, p.52).The opening of the College Museum on 31 January1871 was announced in the following terms:'Since the colla~se of the Literarv andPhilosophical Irlsticucion the curiosicics andspecimens which that body had collected havelain in an unused horse stable, awaiting theadvent of someone who would again utilise themfor the public. The handing-over to the Collegeof the old Philosophical treasures have led themto throw open the Museum to the Public one day aweek ... 4,000 specimens have been arranged themajority labelled. The contribution of thePbilasophical Institution was clothed with thedust and dirt of ten years neglect and eachspecimen had to he hand-washed and re-labelledbefore it was fit for exhibition. All this wasdone by C. Pierson and Mr T[homas] Bloxam the[Hon.] curator' (Cheltenham Examiner, 1 February1871, p.4).The first Honorary College Museum Curator, from1870 until his untimely death in July 1872, wasthe geologist, chemist and science master at theCollege from 1862, Dr Thamas Bloxam (1836-1872)(Argyll 1873).


The College was concerned to extend thecollections. A printed Memorandum dated 24 June1870 survives: it seeks donations of specimensand apparatus across the natural sciences andtechnology 'to he sent to Mr Bloxam the curator'(Cheltenham College Archives). The 8th AnnualReport of the Council of Cheltenham Colleee(21 June 1870) records that they had alreadyreceived other contributions to the Museum fromLady Charlotte Schreiher, Mrs Savory, Professor[James] Buckman, Dr [John] Abercramhie, Dr[Edward Thomas] Wilson [see pp.191, 2021, CharlesPierson Esq., John Walker Esq., George HumphreysEsq., A. Fry Esq. of London, R[ichard] BeamishEsq. [FRS], and T[homas] Bloxam Esq.The 9th Council (21 June 1871) announcesthe completion of the Museum at a cost of £550,the receipt of the CLPI collection, and alsothat 'the Cheltenham Naturalists' Society hadalso presented a fine collection of Fossils,Minerals etc'. It acknowledges Pierson'sinitiation of the whole project and notes thathe had also given his own extensive <strong>Geological</strong>Collection to the College Museum. The 10thCouncil (25 June 1872) records Pierson's'continued superintendence' of the Museum andadds the opinion of one of the College'sLondon-based examiners that 'no other PublicSchool in the Kingdom possessed such a valuableMuseum'.The death of the first Curator, T. Bloxam, in1872 was at first a major obstacle to thedevelopment of the College Museum. Probably forthis reason, when the Geologists' Associationvisited Cheltenham in 1874 it visited thecollections of Rev. Frederick Smithe (1822-1901)of Churchdown (Wethered 1901). He made finecollections af fossils, minerals and recentshells (Anon. 1874). These collections weresold by S. S. Buckman far the benefit of thefamily after Smithe's death (Cleevely 1983,pp.269-270). The relevant archive is preservedin the library of the British <strong>Geological</strong> Surveyat Keyworth (Archives 1/1188).In 1875 William Bishop Strugnell (£1.187541.1898) attempted to publish a hook entitled'Rambles round Cheltenham in af Fossils;-- with an alohaheticallv arransed Glossary of theOolite a Liassic genera. S. S. Printer'. Asan indication, perhaps, of the contemporary lowinterest in such a publication it was neverpublished and only proof sheets of pp.1-8,22-44, the Glossary, p.47 Order of Strata, andpp.48-50 Ramble 1 to Leckhampton now survive (inthe Palaeontology Library, British Museum(Natural History)).On 14 February 1877 the Cheltenham Examinerpublished (p.8) a notice of the College Museumwhich highlighted the ignorance of localinhabitants about the Museum, and againacknowledged Pierson's contribution. It alsosurveyed the non-geological contents.On Pierson's resignation from the CollegeCouncil in 1883 it was resolved to call theCollege Museum the 'Pierson Museum' inacknowledgement of the long and valuableservices he had rendered. He was also madeHonorary Curator (21st Council M, 29 June1883) and is named as such by Greenwood (1888;see also GCG 3, 1982, p.330) who noted anaverage of fifty visitors a week to the Museum,and special local features in the collections offossils and 'skulls of the stone period'!In 1888 Pierson moved from Cheltenham to live atNorwood, London, with his son. This moveinspired a further donation of a collection offossils, but presented in 1888 not to theCollege but to the Town of Cheltenham, which wasput into storage pending a proper purpose-builtMuseum for Cheltenham (which eventually cameabout: see below)., L[That this still did notexhaust the resources of the Piersons'geological collect in^ becomes clear fromEorreipondence in 1961 between Pierson'sgrandson and the Town Clerk and Curator ofCheltenham Museum (preserved in CheltenhamMuseum archives). The erandson soueht to locatethe then whereabouts of-the pierson-collectionsand then to donate his own collection of Chalkfossils to them. But neither the headmaster ofthe College nor the Curator of Cheltenham Museumcould give him information about the fate ofthe Pierson collections, and the Chalk fossilsin question went to a school in Rattingdean!]Murray (1904, vol.1, p.297) recorded that theCollege Museum was still called the PiersonMuseum in 1904. Pierson died on 26 February1891 (Times, 28 February 1891, p. 1) and theHonorary <strong>Curators</strong>hip lapsed till 1895. Ward(1893) discussed the College Museum and itsacquisition of the Institution's collections:'It is strange that a town of such dimensions,refinement, learning, and wealth, as Cheltenham,should of all places, be minus a rate-supported,or at all events, a public museum. Such,however, is the case. Still, this town ofstately streets and foliage is not wholly shutoff from the advantages of such an institution.The general public are, and have a right to be,admitted gratuitously to the Museum of thewell-known College one afternoon each week.This is the full extent of the privilege; theMuseum is the property of the College, andprimarily exists for that seat of learning.How the public received this privilege is soontold. In 1869 the idea of a museum for thescholars was practically taken up by thecouncil, and thirteen months later it was anaccomplished fact. But this movement within wassupplemented - perhaps set a-going - by anequally potent one without. There was an oldPhilosophical Institution in the town, whichcontained a fairly good collection of fossils,minerals and other things; its trusteesoffered to the above council. We will notinquire into the "why and wherefore" of this actof generosity (the institution has long beendefunct - perhaps its end was foreseen), hutbefore parting, these gentlemen stipulated thatthe new museum should be opened, as above, oneafternoon a week to the public. They were notthe only benefactors. One of the members of thecouncil, Mr Charles Pierson, presented his ownprivate geological collection, and from otherquarters rolled in minor contributions. Sincethen, this small museum does not appear to havemade many acquisitions: so it may be surmisedthat its present-day condition is not markedlydifferent from that when it was opened, nearlytwenty-three years ago'.


A published source which now throws some lighton the history of the College Museum is theseries of ReDorts of the Cheltenham ColleeeNatural Historv Society of which a total offifty-four were issued over the period 1871 and1952 (see Appendix 2). Inspired by theestablishment of the College Museum, thisSociety had been founded in March 1870. Fromits first it is clear that the Societywas very much run for the pupils by the pupilswith help from the staff, and was at first quitedistinct from the Museum. The Museum is notseparately mentioned in the first-, otherthan in an exhortation to members to collect forthe Museum. <strong>Geological</strong> activity by the Societyin 1870 was noted simply as 'little attempted,less done,' and a prize of £1-10-0 was offeredfor the hest collection of local fossils tostimulate more activity. The outcome of thiscompetition is unknown as the Society promptlylapsed into an oblivion only to be revived on 15February 1889 ( M , 2, p.5)!The revived Society of 1889 boasted a separate<strong>Geological</strong> Section whose schoolboy secretary wasH. J. Burkill (1871-1956). The only schoolboycollector of fossils to exhibit before theSociety was one E. A. Wilson, active in theentamological~ ornithological sections, whowon the prize far the best collection of localfossils. In 1891 Wilson was noted as one of'the most energetic members' (M, 4, p.5).Edward Adrian Wilsan (1872-1912), who died withScott in the Antarctic, is rightly revered asone of Cheltenham's brightest sons and his manyactivities as a schoolboy collector illuminatehis similar dedication to geological collectingon the return journey from the Pole (Wilson1972, pp.240-241). How Huntford in hiscontroversial book (1979, pp.520, 556-557) cancall this last collection one made with'grotesque misjudgement' and 'a pathetic littlegesture', or observe that 'the specimens meantalmost nothing', is difficult to understand.The material included the first Glosso~teris (G.var. Seward) from Antarctica(Moore 1981), which were then unique (WHuntford 1980, p.87; see also Young 1980) andof vital importance in the debate on ContinentalDrift which was soon to erupt.Wilsan's activity as a schoolboy naturalist musthave been inspired by both his fatherDr Edward Thomas Wilson FRCP (c.1833-1918) (seeTimes, 26 April 1918 and Cheltenham Looker On,27 April 1918, p.11) who had been an early donorto the College Museum (see p.190) and probablyalso his paternal grandfather, another Edward(born 1808 - alive 1863). The latter should heremembered in the world of museums for the parthe played as agent to his American brotherDr Thomas Bellerby Wilson (1807-1865) (Watson1909, pp.2-3) in amassing up the wonderfulnatural history material now being uncovered inthe collections of the Academy of NaturalSciences in Philadelphia (for one major examplein the field of palaeontology, see Spamer et al.1989).The reports from 1889-1894 (m, 2-6) saylittle of the College Museum and we thus gainfew insights into its development, although theyconstantly refer to the use of fossils andspecimens from the Museum to illustratelectures. In 1895 Charles Irving Gardiner(1868-1940) was appointed senior science masterat the College (Anon. 1940), and straightawaybecame president of the Society's <strong>Geological</strong>Section ( M , 7, p.6) and one of theSociety's Secretaries as well as HonoraryCurator. As a result the quality of workundertaken by the section noticeably improved,new donations of fossils to the School Museumare recorded ( M , 7, pp:25-27, 33), andmuch-needed attention was given to the Museum.In 1896 it was noted (-,B, p.7) that theOld College Chapel was about to be used as aLibrary and Museum, thereby making more room inthe present Museum, which was terribly crowded.As part of the major reorganisation of theMuseum in 1896 the first paid Curator in thehistory of the College Museum was appointed,Mr James Charles White (c.1863-1930)(M,37, p.3), with Gardiner as Honorary Curator.As part of this general re-arrangement, in 1898the care of the 'very large' collection ofJurassic fossils was temporarily put into thehands of Sydney Savory Buckman (1860-1929)(m, 10, p.5) who then lived at CharltonKings. He was already an authority on Jurassicstratigraphy and palaeontology, having beeninspired by his father James Buckman. Hereported that the Museum (S. S. Buckman 1899)contained 'a valuable series of fossils both forteaching and worthy of the attention of visitinggeologists'. Buckman also reorganised thesecollections on a stratigraphic basis and did hisbest to relabel specimens, using brackets in avery modern and professional manner to indicateinformation which he had provided to supplementthe original, although he had to report that'the specimens in the majority of cases lackedany labels'. Buckman also reported an specialfeatures of the collection and was responsiblefor recoenisine one of the Tvoe treasures. the.Afigured syntype of Nautilus subtruncatus(Appendix 1). The collection included apa;iicularly good selection of thecharacteristic fossils of the Inferior and GreatOolite in the neighbourhood of Cheltenham.Buckman also noted some of the deficiencies inthe collection and in the following years hemade a number of donations to help fill same ofthese gaps ( M , 11, pp.5, 18, 39). He waspaid £10 for his work on the collection ( m ,ro, p.59).The previous year, S. S. Buckman (1898) hadechoed Ward's amazement of five years beforethat Cheltenham still lacked a public orrate-supported museum. Writing of some newexcavations near Cheltenham which had yieldedsome interesting specimens, he lamented that'how sadly Cheltenham lacks a museum where suchinteresting relics might find a suitable home... In the town which boasts Eruditio as itsmotto, and which is the centre of one of themost interesting districts of England, the wantof such a museum is clearly extra-ordinary. Allthat can be said, however, is perhaps, better nomuseum at all than one suffering from theneglect which may too frequently he seen'.In the next year, 1899, there was at lastestablished a Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum(see below). But the lack of any proper publicmuseum building in Cheltenham between 1860 and1907 meant that the College Museum acted as asubstitute repository for local treasures during


this period. [A similar situation arose with which were all separately curated as theanother fine School Museum, at Sherhorne in'Falkener collection', on printed labelsDorset, from 1875 to 1885 (Torrens 1978a)l. attached to the specimens (=, 11, pp.5,17 . ., ?Q\> ,.However, we must not forget the role in1900. A geological donation of more historicGloucestershire of the Museum of the Royalthan scientific value was made by a GeneralAgricultural College, Cirencester (foundedCox, who gave a cabinet of Shells and Minerals1846), in accepting some of the geological( m , 12, pp.18, 43) originally made bycollections made by the Cotteswold Naturalists'Field Club; and still less must we forget itsunfortunate fate (Torrens 1982).Geolaeical donations to the Colleee Museum1870-1912Thanks to the survival of the original CollegeMuseum donations book (in the College Archives),supplemented by the printed -, it ispossible to list here the major geologicaldonations up to the First World War inchronological order. No registration numberswere given to them, but it is notable that majorgeological donations continued to be made to theCollege Museum even after Cheltenham Town Museumwas opened in 1907.6 June 1870. 12 Ichthyosauri and Plesiosori[sic] in frames; Lower Lias - hanging onwall; C. Pierson.12 June 1870. Ichthyosaurus in frame. Head ofIchthyosaurus hanging on wall; Dr [John]Abercrambie.14 June 1870. 26 Bones of Plesiosaurus -hanging on wall; C. Pierson.23 June 1870. All the specimens and objects ofNatural History from the late CheltenhamLiterary and Philosophical Institution.22 August 1870. Paddle of Ichthyosaur [seebelow] - hanging on wall. Crocodile;Kimmeridge Clay; C. Pierson.15 November 1870. Case with 10 drawerscontaining various fossils; 17 boxes ofminerals and fossils; presented by CheltenhamWorking Naturalists Association.14 June 1878. Vertebrae of Ichthyosauri -hanging on wall; fossil fish in slab;presented by the Cheltenham Hospital withosteological and anatomical material.6 June 1883. Glass Case of fossil corals, 150specimens for the Town Museum; deoosited C.Pierson Esq.10 October 1897 and 18 December 1897. Twocollections of fossils given byRev. Edward Thomas Griffiths (1856-1913) (OldCheltonian, and vicar of Cam, Glos.1898-1913; see also 8, p.16). Thesewere rich in trilobites, especially fromMalvern and Dudley, and of a particularly highquality ( m , 10, p.36) and were speciallylabelled as 'Griffiths collection'.1898. Box of fossils from the eminent historianW. E. H. Lecky (1838-1903) OM (&p&-&, 10,p.18), perhaps collected while he was a pupilat the College, and a very good collection offossils from the Derbyshire CarboniferousLimestone, the Norfolk Forest Bed, and otherrocks (i%s,&, 10, pp.5, 36) presented byRev. Edward E. Montford (c.1830-1918) (Venn1940-1954, vo1.4, p.445), some of whose othercollections went to Norwich Castle Museum [nowNorfolk Museums Service] (Times, 27 November1918, p.11).1899. Mrs Falkener, who is otherwise unknown,gave a large collection of chiefly Jurassieand Cretaceous fossils and also some mineralsLady Charlotte Murchison, 'many of thespecimens being probably collected bySir Roderick Murchison himself'.1906. A collection of fossils made by theRev. Addison Crofton (1846-1904) (Pine 1956,p.557) was given by his daughter. It wasreported as containing very well preservedspecimens, some collected by Crofton when atthe College (W, t8, pp.12, 40). Theammonites in this collection were sent toS. S. Buckman for naming (W, 19, p.3).Crofton is listed by Gill (1903, p.107) andCleevely (1983).August 1908. Two cabinets of fossils and shellswere bequeathed by Rev. T. W. Nowood who haddied in January 1908 and had been the lastHon. Secretary of the Cheltenham Institution(see above). This important collection wasnot only 'very numerous but in a very goodstate of preservation, several of them beingof great value'. It was particularly strongin Inferior Oolite brachiopods, echinodermsand ammonites (m, 20, pp.11, 47).1909. Dr E. T. Wilson, father ofDr E. A. Wilson (see above), presented fossilsand minerals which may have been collected byhis son.1912. Dr E. T. Wilson also presented 'specimensof Kenite - a rock from Mount Erebus' whichhad certainly been collected by his son(W, 21, p.11; and 25, p.10).College Museum develo~ments 1914-1940During the First World War i(eDorts were notissued, but an Old Cheltonian who entered theCollege in 1915 and became a distinguishedgeologist after graduation from BristolUniversity, Dr F. B. A. Welch (1903-1987), laterrecalled (L U. to HST, 2 December 1984) 'twotall cabinets in the Museum with a jumble oflargely unlabelled specimens. Most were localJurassic fossils from the Ragstone ofLeckhampton and Pea Grit of Crickley. Alsovarious Silurian materials collected by thescience master C. I. Gardiner'. This suggeststhat the collections had become somewhatneglected in war-time. But donations continued,and in 1916 'three more cabinets of fossilscollected by the late Charles Piersan Esq.' (seeabove) were donated by his widow (m, 27,p 1 1 [This was the specific donation soughtby his grandson in 1961 with no success (seeabove) !]The Museum remained at its old racquets courtsite of 1870 with the addition of the otherracquets court shown as a Yard in the map givenby Hunter (1890, opp. p.2) far museum expansionin 1902 (Skirving 1928, p.xii-xviii; -,13, p.6) to double its size. Views of theMuseum published in 1911 (Hunter 1911, betweenpages 2-3) give a fine idea of its scale (Figs.8 and 9). There is evidence that in 1897, whenthe former School Chapel was converted for useas the School Library, some space at one end wasalso used as a museum area for material other


Fig. 8. The interior of the College Museum at its original site in about 1910. Note the six wall mountedSaurians on the left hand wall and the fossil fish in the centre of the far end wall. Photograph byG. Martyn and Sons, Cheltenham (Cheltenham College archives).Fig. 9. The other end of the College ~useum taken at the same time as Fig. 8., showing some of thezoological and ornithological collections (Cheltenham College archives).-193-


than geological and natural history material.The 8th M (p.7) noted that it would'probably be possible to keep the old, soterribly crowded, Museum for a Natural HistoryMuseum alone'. Public access to the Museum oneafternoon (Tuesday) a week continued, asconfirmed by a letter from the Principal dated18 February 1905 to the Librarian and Curator ofCheltenham Museum and Public Library (where theletter is preserved).The Natural History and other collections wereall transferred from their old home into the BigModern in 1922-1923, when the old Museum roomswere needed for science rooms and form rooms(m, 30, p.3; Skirving 1928, p.xix; Pigg1953, p.xiv). The new site is shown on the mapPublished by Skirving (1928, opp. p.1). Themove probably involved a reduction in spaceoverall, so the new 'Museum' was soon sufferingfrom lack of room and many gifts were having tobe refused. Some archaeological material thathad been found c.1875 at the old Chedworth RomanVilla was returned in 1925 to the Museum beingset up on the villa site (M, 32, p.3).This would have slightly eased problems of space.In July 1928 Gardiner, who had been Secretary ofthe CCNHS, Honorary Curator, and President ofits <strong>Geological</strong> Section for thirty-three years,retired from the School (m, 35, p.3; 46,p.5). He was a keen geologist and author of twotextbooks, An introduction to eeala~ (1914) and(1923), as well as a number ofarticles. He then became Curator of the CowleMuseum at Stroud (now Stroud District Museum)from 1929 to 1940 (Anon. 1940; Venn 1940-1954,"01.3, p.9: Gloucestershire Echo, 13 December1940, p.3; Reynalds 1941), and transformed itinto an excellent provincial museum. Gardinerwas himself a keen collector, donating materialto museums in Bristol, Cambridge, London andStraud (Cleevely 1983, pp.124, 337) with a majorpart of his personal collection remaining atCheltenham College.On 8 July 1930 the salaried curator White, who'assisted' the Honorary Curator (always on theSchool staff), died. White was a son ofHenry White who had long been a naturalist andtaxidermist in St Luke's Terrace, Cheltenham.On his father's death, J. C. White was appointedin 1896 to the College Museum where hisknowledge of botany, ornithology, zoology andtaxidermy proved invaluable (CheltenhamChronicle, 12 July 1930, p.2, Cheltanian 1930,pp.257-258; M, 37, p.3). So within twoyears the Society and the Museum had lost bothleaders; a list of curators (taken in part fromthe South West Federation of Museums Handbooks)shows subsequent changes:Hon. Curator fa master on the staff)1895 C. I. Gardiner1928 1933 H. F. Jones1934 1944 S. E. Baker1948 1952 C. H. Boutflower1955 K. G. WhiteAssistant Curator (salaried)1896 1930 J. C. White1930 1936 P. S. Peherdv21936 1939 S. D. Scatt (now Acting Curatarfrom School staff, retired)Philip Story Peberdy (born 1908) came from theCity of Leicester Museum to succeed White at aninitial salary of E170 a year in November 1930,until April 1936 when he was appointed to thepost at the British Guiana Museum (advertised inthe Museums Journal, February 1936, p.vi). Thewriting already seems to have been on the wallfor the College Museum, as in June 1936D. W. Herdman (Curator of Cheltenham TownMuseum) could write to warn Peberdy that 'Lord[Arthur Hamilton] Lee [1868-1947, Life President1917-1939 of the College Council] takes a veryadverse view of the Cheltenham College Museum,and any further development in connectiontherewith' (letter in Cheltenham Museumarchives). Peberdy's reply of 21 July 1936noted 'the apathy towards the collections undermy charge during the past five years was themain reason for my desiring a new post' abroad.In 1931 Peberdy had made a start by relabellingall exhibits in the Museum (-, 38,pp.14-IS), at a time when there were 591 membersof the Natural History Society! An unexpecteddonation is recorded in the College DonationsRegister for October 1932 as 'Specimens ofMinerals and Fossils from Cheltenham PublicMuseum (D. Herdman - Curator) incorporated intothe College's General Collection' (see alsoMeports, 39, p.14). This transfer may explainthe fate of some of the lost collectionsformerly in the Town Museum. Two photographs ofthe School Museum in Big Modern appear in theCollege Prospectus of 1933 preserved in theCollege Archives, confirming the College'scommitment to it till then.In 1933 a rough inventory was made of thecontents of the whole museum, of forty-six typedpages (copy in Liverpool Museum archives) whichsurveyed the geological collections in a meretwo pages (pp.33-34)! These noted four largecases with fossils (approx. 8645 specimens),three cabinets of minerals (approx. 348specimens), and a number of additional cases andcabinets containing unspecified geologicalmaterial, and 'suspended on the north and westwalls are the remains, mounted in cement andplaster, of fourteen specimens of fossilPlesiosaurs, Ichthyosaurs and one fossil fish'.The summary of the Museum's history appended ismerely a copy of that which appeared in m,37, pp.45-47, for 1930. By then a total of 596donors to the Museum in its first sixty years ofexistence had been recorded.The retired Master-cum-Curator appointed in1936, at a 'salary' of f20, was S. D. Scott(1873-1946); he was responsible for depositingthe syntypeof Nautilus iubtruncatus in-BristoiCity Museum in 1942 for safekeeping during theSecond World War (Appendix l).In 1937 he tookthe opportunity 'ihiie cleaning the walls . . . toreset some of the Saurian skeletons which hadbecome loosened. These were part of Pierson'soriginal benefactions to the Museum. Many ofthem were found in the Lias at Tewkesbury'(M, 44, pp.5-6). Some of these fourteenspecimens can be seen in Fig. 8, which may aidtheir recognition. While certainly recorded(see above) as part of the Pierson donation of1870, these seem certain ultimately to havederived from the James Dudfield sale of 1843(p.180) via the older collections of theCheltenham Institution.


The Second World War and its leeaceWith the outbreak of war in 1939 the school wasremoved to Shrewsbury, the school buildingscommandeered by the Government and the Museumclosed ( m , 46, p.2). When the schoolreturned to Cheltenham in May 1940 they soonlost their acting curator, S. D. Scott, who wasgiven charge of the Stroud Museum in place ofC. I. Gardiner (died December 1940) ( m , 46,p.2; 48, p.2). With no proper curator and thediversion created by war-time, the results canbe imagined. When the first post-war report(48) was issued after a gap of four years, therewas simply no <strong>Geological</strong> Section report ormention of the Museum. In 1947 the first newnatural history donations to the Museum arerecorded (m, 49, p.2) hut it was not until1948 that the re-opening of the Museum wasdiscussed ( M , 50, p.20). The collectionwas to be moved again, from its home in BigModern to the west racquets court, which hadbeen refurbished, but the writer noted ominouslythat 'the prospect of cleaning and rearrangingthe rest of the collections, Minerals, Fossilsand so on fills the Secretary with dismay. Theamount of time and work needed will bestaggering and a long time must elapse beforethe work is anything like complete. Many of theexhibits have to he "written off" as War Damage'!E?~LxL, 50, p.2). With no <strong>Geological</strong> Sectionin the College Natural History Society anylonger, informed help was hard to find. In 1949the Museum was re-opened again in its new home( M , 51, p.2), hut the archaeologicalcollection, although available, was stillawaiting arrangement and while the geologicalcollection had 'been unpacked and checked ....at present there is no means for displayingit'. At this time far some reason all thegeological collections began to be referred toas 'Mr C. I. Gardiner's collection' ( m , 51,p.2).In 1949-1950 the geological collections at lastreceived same attention:'Mr C. I. Gardiner's collection [sic] of Fossilshas been sorted by the untiring efforts ofMr P. G. Channon [sic], assisted by Mr Clayton.Mr Channon, a leading authority an Fossils,undertook and completed the task although he wasabout to leave England to take up an appointmentin Australia and was very busy indeed. We aremost grateful to him. The collection had falleninto a state of utter confusion, aggravated bythe removals during the war; the catalogue washopelessly out of order and out of date; manyspecimens had been imperfectly treated and werein consequence of no value. Faced by this chaosMr Channon decided to save all he could in orderto build up a comprehensive teachinncollection. He prepared an entirely newcatalogue, which he was not able to finish untilhe was on his way to Australia. This he postedto us and Mr Claytan is now engaged inre-numbering the specimens and packing them intoboxes so that they may be conveniently storedand readily accessible whenever they areneeded. There is not space enough in the Museumto allow us to display them.' ( m , 52, p.2)The late Percival Joseph Channon OBE was anenthusiastic local geologist who then lived atBredons Norton, near Tewskesbury, with some wellconsidered views an geological collecting,recording and curation (Channon 1950). He mightseem to have been misinformed that the chaos towhich he so nobly attempted to bring order wasmerely the C. I. Gardiner collection. From thesurviving material it is clear that hecatalogued as 'C. I. Gardiner' collectionwhatever was rescued of all the old CollegeMuseum collections. But in a letter written tothe curator C. H. Boutflower on 19 July 1950just before he left England, Channon adds 'Iwould like to point out that there appears to beat least four [geological] collections, and thatonly some 50% or so of these appear inMr Gardiner's old catalogues' so evidentlyChannon was aware af the problem if unable tosolve it. He continues 'it should also be notedthat it has been passible to save only about 50%of the whole lot, owing to the disgraceful wayin which they have been mixed and tumbled .... Iam sorry it has not been possible to make abetter job of the collection, but trust that ourefforts will have rendered it at least usefulfor teaching purposes' (letter in LiverpoolMuseum archives).Channou's catalogue of the entirely re-curatedcollection survives (at Portsmouth Polytechnic,Department of Geology). It was now ar;anged instratigraphic order. Specimens were renumberedand old numbers recorded, same identificationswere copied from old catalogues while samespecimens were redetermined. Channon'scatalogue ends unfortunately 'many specimenslisted in the old catalogues are omitted fromthis list because they are either missing orcannot be sorted from the mass of unlabelledspecimens with any certainty. This being sothey are valueless and specimens without newnumber tickets should be [and were] discarded'.This was a sad end to these fine collectionswhich still comprised some 10,000 fossils in1933. Nowadays such unduly pessimistic disposalwould - we hope - not be countenanced (Knell andTaylor 1989).But with the lack of interest in geology at theCollege and the low state of the College NaturalHistory Society, whose last report was issuedfor 1952 ( M , 54), there was no interest inthe collections. There was no permanent curatorand people who wished to see the collectionswere to 'apply to the Secretary of the School'(v, 53, inside cover). The last recordedgeological donation in the Donations registerwas in June 1959 when A. J. Symonds presentedhis grandfather-in-law Charles Pierson'sGeologist's Walking Stick; 'with compass,telescope, brass ink container, pen holder,glass bottle, dividers, candle stick and candle'according to a letter preserved at LiverpoolMuseum. It would be fascinating to locate thistool of the Victorian geologist's trade, if itsurvives.These geological collections were now at themercy of predators. The successful applicantwas Brian Daley, from the then City ofPortsmouth College of Technology, who wrote in1962 to various Museums seeking minerals, rocksand fossils for teaching (letter dated 19November 1962 in Cheltenham Museum archives).At the College, the space used for Museumstorage in the old racquets court was needed forexpansion, and in March 1963 the College


authorities asked the Curator of Gloucester CityMuseum (J. N. Taylor Esq.) to assist them indisposing of parts of the Museum. Taylor wasable to tell Liverpool Museum of theavailability of zoological material and Daley atPortsmouth about the geological collections.Daley promptly wrote to the College on 4 April,just beating Liverpool Museum to the draw! Themain geological collection then passed toPortsmouth Polytechnic (as it now is), whilesome natural history material went to Liverpooland some archaeological material to CambridgeUniversity. But a lot of material was m thendisposed of, being put into store (in a room offRoom 30, above Old Junior) in August 1963.In 1970 HST visited the College to look at whatmaterial had not been transferred to Portsmouth,and found one of two ammonites recently cited byArkell (1951-1959), almost certainly wrongly, ashaving formed part of the C. I. Gardinercollection rather than that of the old CollegeMuseum (Appendix 2: the specimen is now BMNHC82796, the other is C89608).In 1976 the April issue of the Museums Bulletinannounced (~01.16, p.4) the complete disposal ofthe remaining Natural History eollectians fromthe College Museum which passed to LiverpoolMuseum, by purchase. Liverpool also purchasedthirteen fossil fish (Reg. nos. 1976 159 A-N),including two Da~edium oolitum fram the LowerLias, one fram Lyme Regis (z Rev. W. B. Cardew).The geological material now at PortsmouthPolytechnic chiefly comprises molluscs fram theGreat Oolite at Minchinhampton, and molluscs andbrachiapods from the Upper Lias and InferiorOolite of the Cotswolds: it has suffered somelosses even since 1950 (Cleevely 1983, p.81).The 4,500-5,000 specimens have been computerised(M. J. Barker iLI U. 10 December 1985).But some material still remains at the College,including an ichtbyasaur paddle with vertebraeseen there in 1985, and probably that visible inFig.8. But of the other large Saurians no-oneseems to know their fate!Cheltenham Ladies College was founded in 1853 asa Church of England day school, with the closeinvolvement of the Principal and Vice-Principalof the twelve years old Boys College. It was aremarkable development in the education of women.By 1895 it boasted a Museum, within the sciencedepartment, 70 by 26 feet in size (Meade 1895,p.288). The school's historian records that itwas the inspiration of Miss Dorothea Beale(1831-1906), College Principal from 1858 to 1906and the part subject of one of the more famousclerihews in English, who 'Cupid's darts [did]not feel'. She was a true pioneer of theeducation of women in Britain, and it isinteresting to find that she included provisionfar a Museum.Soon after Beale's arrival the focus for scienceteaching became physical geography (Kamm 1958,p.56), as it was thought a safe subject forgirls. In 1894 a new College library was builtand the Museum occupied the floor above (Clarke1953, p.81). Geography teaching provided thestimulus for a model of the physical geographyand geology round Cheltenham made byMiss A. F. Parkinson, a photograph of which waspublished by Richardson (1904, p.v, pl.xiii).Such geographical focus continued until at least1914 when E. M. Sanders was awarded her Parisdoctorate for a thesis on the Region of Bristolwhile 'Geography specialist at the College'(Sanders 1914).Richardson also recorded (z. &., p.211) thepresence of one of the geological treasures ofthe College Museum. This was the ichthyosaurTemnodontosaurus olatvodon (Conyheare) found in1899 while digging the foundations for theCollege's first purpose-built hoarding house,'Glenlee' in Malvern Road. The specimen wasfourteen feet long (BRSMG Geology File FER2) andit remained in the Museum until August 1917 whenit was lent to the Town Museum (CheltenhamLooker On, 6 October 1917, p.8). It wasreturned to the Ladies College an 29 July 1932,when Cheltenham Museum no longer had space forit (letter to Miss E. N. Fergussan in CHLGMarchives).Then in 1934 the College Musewn was divided intonew classrooms, 'but there [were] many whoremember vividly same of its contents ...[including] the ichthyosaur whose remains hadbeen found near the playing-field when thefoundations were dug for Glenlee' (Clarke 1953,p.81).The fate of this specimen is thereafterunknown. In 1962 the Misses Fergusson ofCheltenham tried, without success, to locateit. It was not there when Justin Delair, in1968, and Wendy Sayer, in 1973, worked throughthe remnants of these collections. In 1972Miss S. M. Sadlier, who was an the staff of theCollege from 1935 to 1969 and was latterlyVice-Principal, kindly wrote to HST (iLI U. 2July 1972), 'I am sorry I cannot help you averthe Museum which we once had at College. It wasdispersed during the War when I was a juniormember of staff and it was only years later..... that I tried to trace what had happenedhut the Bursar who arranged the dispersal haddied and all I could discover was that variousitems had been given to the Museums inGloucester and Cheltenham and also to one of theColleges in Oxford. My efforts to trace themfailed and I cannot therefore give you anyinformation about the geological specimens. Ourbuildings were taken over during the War and itwas a time of great confusion and apparently norecords were kept. It is a great pity'. Nomore recent information has come to light andany further news would he welcomed.The Cheltenham Naturalists' Association of 1867soon foundered, like its ancestor: but the needfor some such local society remained, and a newCheltenham Natural Science Society wasestablished in 1877 (Austin 1928, p.523).Papers were read at its meetings and it seems tohave led a rather desultory life until 1907 whennew rules were agreed and it entered a new, ifshortlived, lease of life under the Presidencyof E. T. Wilson, father of the Polar explorer,and Linsdall Richardson as Honorary Secretary.It published its Proceedines in a New Seriesfrom 1907 until at least the First World War.


The Society provided a forum which drew togetherlocal amateurs as well as teachers from bothCheltenham College and the Ladies' College. Oneof its objects was as always the 'exhibition ofspecimens' (Proceedines, NS, 1, 1908, p.xxi) andso it is likely to have provided material farthe Town Museum, just as the CatteswoldNaturalists' Field Club did with the CornfordCollection (see p.201); as neither Societycould maintain its own museum it naturally chosethe local public museum as a repository.THE COLLEGE OF SAINT PAUL AND SAINT MARYThe present College of Saint Paul and Saint Maryis part of the College of Further Education, andwas formerly two separate teacher trainingcolleges for men (St Paul's) and women (StMary's). St Paul's College lost its 'finecollection of geological specimens' in January1914 when a fire destroyed the geologicallaboratory and other buildings (CHLGMarchives). Where this collection came from isunknown; it may possibly have containedmaterial now 'lost' from the other collectionsdescribed here. Later. in the vears before theSecond World War, charies R. ~ a initiated p ~ anddeveloped the present geological collection forteaching purposes and may have (mis)appropriatedspecimens from the Town Museum collection (seebelow)CHELTENHAM ART GALLERY AND MUSEUMThe erowth and decline of the eealoaicalcollectionsVirtually nothing remains in Cheltenham of mostof the collections so far described, largelybecause the present Art Gallery and Museum,operated by the Borough Council, did not existbefore 1907, and was geologically inactive inthe years after the Second World War, when theCollege Museum was sadly dispersed.Nevertheless, the Museum has an interestinggeological collection with some valuablematerial.Cheltenham Town Council opened its Art Galleryin 1899 alongside the Library and the Schools ofArt and Science in Clarenee Street, after thethird Baron de Ferrieres had donated the costand his collection of paintings (Annual Reportsof the Art Gallery and Museum Committee,Cheltenham Borough Council, 1899-1915). TheSchools moved out in 1905 and the Museum wasopened in 1907 in the space thus vacated. TheArt Gallery and Museum has remained ever sincein the Clarence Street complex, physicallyintertwined with the Library. The Town Counciloperated the Art Gallery and Museum togetherwith the Library under a joint Librarian-Curatoruntil 1974. Following local governmentreorganisation in 1974, the library wastransferred to Gloucestershire County Councilbut it remains in the same building complex asthe Art Gallery and Museum, now operated by thelocal District Council, Cheltenham BoroughCouncil (Figs.10, 11).The growth of the geological collections startedin 1888, before the Art Gallery and the Museumwere built, when Mr Charles Pierson donated a'large collection' of fossils which had to bekept in store until at least 1900 (see below).Thereafter the collections grew by donationsfrom local geologists such as S. S. Buckman,J. W. Gray, L. Richardson, and R. P. Wild (whoseems to have established one of the earlierdisplays in 1920, as recorded by his catalogueof the rock specimens; Wild 1920).Charles R. Mapp, of the College of St Paul andSt Mary, was also involved in the Town Museum'swork, serving on its committee for many yearsand reorganising the displays in 1931-1932 (inthe tidy. educational stvle of the time) with af250 awkid from the ~ar&ie United ~ingdomTrust. These had beautifully hand-writtenlabels and text, with original photographs andhand-drawn diagrams, and illustrations cut frompublications. Eighteen bays of these displayssurvived until 1989. He may possibly haveremoved some specimens from the Museum, such asthe Euthvnotus now at the College of St Paul andSt Mary (see below). Certainly some materialalso then went to the Cheltenham College Museum(see p.194).The fortunes of all geological collections atCheltenham (like so many other places) entered aperiod of sharp decline after 1939, to reachtheir nadir in the 1950s and 1960s; the TownMuseum was no exception. Existing recordssuggest that the staff took little if anyinterest in their geological collections, andaddition of new material only occurred throughthe indiscriminate acceptance of gifts andenquiry specimens. An equal lack ofdiscrimination informed the partial dispersal ofthe existing collections. For example,D. W. Herdman, the Curator of the time,transferred material to Bristol City Museum(BRSMG Acc. No. 36/1946), but unfortunatelyneither museum listed the specimens involved!More justifiably, in 1967 the British Museum(Natural History) also abstracted the halotypeof the ammonite Denckmannia bredonensis in adistinctly unequal exchange for severalammonites from the Gault Clay of Folkestone.However, other type material has remained in thecollections (see below).The exhibits left from the reorganisation of the1930s remained, untouched and unimproved but infairly good order, until the mid 1970s when mostof the display cases were cleared into drawers.Unfortunately those responsible simply put eachspecimen and label loose in the drawer; fewwere numbered, so this soon led to specimens inone corner and labels in another - destroyingthe value of a large part of the collection, andrequiring a great deal of work to restore theremainder. It is no consolation to reflect thatmany other geological collections have also beenirreparably damaged by people who 'tidied themaway' under the guise of modern and purportedlyprofessional curatorship (e. g. Brears 1984).In 1978, Gaynor Andrews (former AssistantCurator of Fine Art) was told to clear out thegeological cabinets to make space for works ofart on paper. She moved most of the material topolythene bags in large cardboard boxes, andlater to lidded fibre museum boxes. Mercifully,however, she painstakingly recorded the sourcedrawers of loose specimens and labels, as wellas any clear association of specimen and label.


Fig. 10. Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum have shared the Clarence Street building with the Library sincethe turn of the century (Area Museum Council for the South West).Her careful curation thus saved the collectionfrom complete ruin. From 1979 the collectionwas stored in an attic room in the annexe. Thedrawers from same cabinets and the fibre boxeswere placed on open shelves. Since then variousspecimens have emerged from other places in themuseum and its large object store, andespecially from the schools loan store.Fig. 11. The office annexe on the other sideof the street from the Art Gallery andMuseum, where the geological collection wasformerly housed (AMCSW).The collection has lately been almost completelyunused, because of its inaccessibility anddisorder, and because the museum staff havelacked any specialist geological knowledge.Only a small part of the 1930s display remainedin the main museum until the currentreorganisation, and a few of Edward Wilson'sminerals have been put in the exhibit on Wilson(see p.191). Several specimens have been usedin a 'Hidden Treasures' temporary exhibitionscheme which puts material from the storedcollections on temporary display at the sametime as publication of an article in a regularcolumn in the Gloucestershire Echo. A few itemsare used for school loans. Very little hasbeen published about the collections apart frombrief summaries by Cleevely (1983) and Steward(1986). HST examined the collections in the1970s. T. Pettigrew (Sunderland Museum) spent aweek in 1978-1979 on initial sorting anddocumentation, and Dr M. L. K. Curtis (BristolCity Museum) spent a few days curating some ofthe minerals and advising on the purchase of aregister, specimen labels and self-sealingpolythene bags. Their work was later to be veryuseful. Otherwise the collection was unseen andalmost forgotten by the outside world.The collection's size and state demanded atleast several months' specialist curatorialeffort - far more than any nearby museum couldspare. Nevertheless there was (and still is) noprospect of recruiting the service's ownspecialist. The only sensible option (other


specimens as such. Only a few specimens werelabelled and many of the rest had been separatedfrom their labels in the 1970s removal. With afew exceptions noted below, the specimens wereunnumbered. The physical state of the specimenswas variable. Dirt and dust, and physicaldamage due to poor storage, were by far thecommonest problems. There were rather fewspecimens with more specialised problems, suchas pyrite decay.Rocks and minerals. The rock and mineralcollections include useful general suites ofspecimens from all over the world, although theminerals in particular have suffered from pastdirt and neglect. The total number of specimensis not known but is of the order of 1,000,ignoring Drift and soil specimens. The rockcollection's largest component consists of some300 hand specimens from various localities(catalogued and described by Wild 1920; Fig.12).Virtually all these specimens have been traced,including Antarctic material collected byRaymond Priestley and other members of theBritish Antarctic Expedition of 1901-1904.Fig. 12. Portrait of Captain R. P. Wild, themineralogist and Inspector of Mines in theGold Coast, by Flora Tomkins (painting inCheltenham Art Gallery and Museum) (AMCSW).than neglect or disposal) was to use temporaryspecialist curators to restore the collection tosuch a standard that it could be maintainedeasily by non-specialist curators. Cheltenhamthus stands between museums with collectionssmall enough to be recurated by outside staff,and larger museums which need to recruit theirown specialist curators (Taylor 1987).In 1982-1983 the Area Museum Council for theSouth West (AMCSW) carried out a survey ofgeological 'conservation' work which its membermuseums wanted done. In return for work on thecollections, Cheltenham promised a contributiontowards the cost of the AMCSW post of <strong>Geological</strong>Conservator/Preparatar (later retitled<strong>Geological</strong> Officer) which MAT took up in 1983.Content of the eeoloeical collectionsThe collections number several thousandspecimens. They are not yet fully curated andsome of the missing specimens mentioned belowmay yet turn up at Cheltenham or eleswhere. Theaccount here can only be a preliminary one andwe hope that eventually someone will completethe job (perhaps looking also at the otherlinked Gloucestershire collections, e. g. thoseof Hutton, Richardson and Uptan, see below).Documentation was almost non-existent in 1983.Gaynor Andrexs and Tim Pettigrew had compiled acard index of geological accessions from theMuseum's central records, but these did not listThere are a number of samples of Drift and soilmaterial. A collection of local Quaternarygravels and sands made by J. W. Gray (see below)was briefly described by Gray (1927) but the'typed copies of the Notes, etc. in full [whichwere ta be] placed in the library of the[Cotteswold Naturalists' Field] Club and in theCheltenham Museum' have not yet been traced inthe Museum. Further samples in this categorywere donated by C. R. Mapp and A. W. Jamieson.The minerals comprise a range of specimensincluding semi-precious stones. The Museumpurchased the collection of the engineerRobert Stephenson (see p.202), but none of theseimportant specimens have so far been identified.Borehole material. Linsdall Richardson, wellknown for his publications on ground watersupplies, donated samples from several localboreholes drilled for water and cited most ofthose samples as being in the Museum. Only oneof the two cited s~ecimens fram the Lewis Lane.Cirencester, b ore hole of 1904 has been found(Hibbert and Richardson 1904). The citedmaterial from a deep well-sinking at LeckhamptonHill (c. 1910) has not been traced (Richardson1910a). However, the cited samples fram theKemble Borehole of 1911 all survive (Richardson1913). Most, but not all, of the citedspecimens fram the Tetbury Borehole of 1915(Richardson 1915a, 1915b, 1930) were transferredto Bristol City Museum as part of the 1946transfer (15 specimens; BRSMG Geology File112). Most samples from the Shipton Moyne No.2Borehole of 1914-1915 cited by Richardson(1915c), and some uncited samples, survive atCheltenham, as well as a few mare fram theShipton Moyne No.3 Borehale (Richardson 1919).As for the rest, some may be in the British<strong>Geological</strong> Survey collections, either in theBorings Collection or more likely in theRichardson Collection. See Fig.13.Fossils. The fossil collection mostly comprisesmaterial from the local Jurassic of the Vale ofSevern and the Cotswolds. It includes some ofthe personal collections of Hutton andRichardson (see below) but their material has


ammonitesubcontractus from Laycock,Sherbarne, and possibly cited in the ShaftesburyMemoir of the <strong>Geological</strong> Survey (fideH. S. Torrens). Cope d. (1980) referred tounspecified Cheltenham Museum material in theirrevision of British Jurassic stratigraphy.The holotype of the decapod crustacean mrichardsoni H. B. Woodward, 1911, is in thecollection at Cheltenham. It was collected byHarriet Holland from the Upper Lias of DumbletonHill (H. B. Woadward 1911; Woods 1924-1931).Fig. 13. Core specimens from the KembleBorehole 1911 and the Shipton Moyne Borehole1914-1915, in Cheltenham Art Gallery andMuseum, labelled and cited by LinsdallRichardson (AMCSW).been partly dispersed to the BM(NH) and BristolCity Museum. Some type and cited material stillsurvives at Cheltenham but more remainsuntraced. A formal listing must await fullcuration of the collection.Still at Cheltenham are the seven syntypespicules of the Inferior Oolite sponge Renieraoolitica Richardson and Thacker,1920,from thecollection of Charles Upton (see below)(Richardson 1910b; Richardson and Thacker 1920)Sayer (1974) noted the presence af a syntype ofthe hrachiopod Stroudithvris randwickensisRichardson and Upton, 1913, the possibleholotype of the MS species Pseudoelossithvriss~atulata L. Richardson MS, and tapotypes ofother species in the Richardson brachiopods atCheltenham.The holotype of the ammonite Denckmanniabredonensis Buckman, 1903, was transferred tothe BM(NH) in 1967; Phillips (1977) listed itas Phmnatoceras -.Crick (1920) mentioned a collection ofdibranchiate cepbalopods from the Upper Lias ofAlderton as being at the Museum, and that itincluded 'examples of both Geoteuthis andTeuthapsis as well as some detached hooklets'.He figured a specimen of Geoteuthis and one ofT. hrunelii, describing another of- G. aeassizii. None have been located at~Cheltenham but the G. agassizii at least is nowat Bristol (BRSMG Ce3230).Richardson and Walters (1922) described anexcavation in the Lower Lias at CheltenhamCorporation Sewage Works, citing variousspecimens then in the ~heltenham Museum.Trueman (1922) further cited, described andfi~ured some of the ammonites. erecting the newspecies Arniaceras W. None of thesehas been traced at Cheltenham but same at leastwere transferred to Bristol in 1946 and threefigured and thirty-three cited specimens survivein the collection there (BRSMG Ce3231-65);unfortunately, the holotype of A. juncticostaremains untraced.Another ex-Cheltenham Town Museum specimen atBristol is BRSMG Ce97, a specimen of theA. S. Woodward (1911) described two specimens ofthe fish Euthvnotus from Dumbleton Hill as thefirst records of that genus from the EnglishLias. Dr M. J. Simms (pers. corn.) pointed outthat the descriptions closely fit two specimens(Fh9 and 10) in the teaching collection of theCollege of St Paul and St Mary; these arelabelled as coming from Gretton Hill nearDumbleton Hill but Woodward may well have mixedup the locality with the former home of thecollection at Dumbleton Hall. If Woodward wascorrect in citing their repository as theCheltenham Museum, then they must have strayedto the College at some time, probably underMapp's auspices in the 1930s.The Cornfard and Lingwood collection includesremains of Pleistocene mammals excavated in 1871from King Arthurs's Cave in the Wye Valley(Symonds 1880; Jackson 1937), now curated aspart of the archaeological collection.Finally, a plaster cast of an ichthyosaur foundin the museum's furniture store in 1982 (CHLGM1931, 1la) appears to be one of the very fewcasts remaining of an original destroyed in theair-raid on Bristol City Museum in November1940. This specimen (BRSMG Cb2464), supposedlyfrom Saltford near Bath, had an involved history(Taylor and Clark, in prep.; BRSMG Geology FilePUR 1). Owen (1840) described preserved softtissue in its tail fin but included it in erroras a syntype of Ichthvosaurus latimanus Owen,1840. Later, Lydekker (1889, pp.53-54)described it as a paratype of I. convheariLydekker. The cast was purchased from aCheltenham junk shop in 1931; its previoushistory is unrecorded but it must be the castthat the Bristol Institution supplied to aPurnell Bransby Purnell (1791-1866) in 1847.Purnell lived at Stancombe Park near Dursley(Burke 1921, p.1459) and his partly geologicalpersonal museum therewas thrown open to membersof the CNFC an 28 August 1855 (Baker 1860,p.iii). This late casting date is consistentwith differences between it and earlier casts ofthe same specimen (e. g. BMNH 1065), indicatingchanges to the specimen itself or modificationsto the moulds.Some maior donors and collectorsThe following list summarises some of the knowndonors to the CHLGM collection, and is based onthe Museum's archives, Art Gallery SubcommitteeReports (henceforth m CHLGM), and otherreferences that we have located.ACTON, Miss Anne Moore (died c. 1904-1905).Collection of 'shells and minerals' given byher sister, Miss Moore Acton (5thWBI, for 1904-1905, p.24).


BIGOT, Prof. [A. P. D. (1863-1953)l. Somespecimens of deslonechamos and Q.lotharinsica from the Lower Callovian ofCalvados are labelled 'from Prof. Bigot17.1.'08'; this is A. P. D. Bigot (Cleeveley1983).BUBB, E. Maude. Presumed to be the widow ofHenry Bubb (born 1847) JP of Ullenwood, nr.Cheltenham (see entry for Wright). Henrydisappears from CNFC members lists between1929 and 1930.BUCKMAN, Sydney Savory (1860-1929). The famousJurassic stratigrapher, who donated somespecimens to the museum (4th ReDort CHLGM, for1903-1904, p.24), including the type ofDenckmannia bredonensis Buckman (1903)originally given to him by Newton (see below).CALLOWAY, Charles (1838-1915). Calloway was animportant local geologist and friend ofLinsdall Richardson. On his death hisgeological collection was offered to the TownMuseum (Torrens 1988b) and accepted, asconfirmed by an entry of 'rock specimens andmaps' under his name. The Cheltenhamcollection is thus worth checking for any'lost' specimens, such as the six missingbrachiopods figured by Davidson (1883-1884)(also Torrens 1976; Cocks 1978).CORNFORD, Rev. [Edward] [1833-18981. In 1903Mrs Cornford presented 'a large oak cabinetcontaining the local fossils collected by herlate husband Rev. E. Cornford' (4th mCHLGM, for 1903-1904, p.24). This is thecollection of the late Rev. E. Cornford firstdonated to the CNFC in 1897 (Colchester-Wemyss1898) which the Club Secretary, S. S. Buckman,passed to CHLGM in 1903 (correspondence inCHLGM archives). The collection may have beendispersed later to St Paul's by C. R. Mapp.GRAY, Joseph William (died 1935). Gray wasactively interested in the local Quaternarydeposits (Gardiner and Herdman 1935) anddonated a collection of Drift material fromthe Cotswold-Malvern region (Gray 1927). Healso donated other material, such as lava fromMount Erebus.HOLLAND, Harriet Sophia ( c. 1835-1908), later(after 1865) Mrs HUTTON. Harriet SaphiaHutton nee Holland, was the eldest daughter ofthe Lord of the Manor at Dumbletan,Gloucestershire (Torrens 1978b; Cleevely1983). Her collection from the Upper, Middleand Lower Lias of the quarries near DumbletonHill, especially at Alderton Hill and Gretton,was well known (Guise 1865; Wright 1865;Richardson 1929). At least part of thiscollection appears now to be at Cheltenham,including some interesting Upper Liassicinsects and the type of richardsoniH. B. Woodward (see above). An 'importantgift of rare fossils found at Dumbleton Hill,Glos., was made by Miss Holland' (11thD, for 1910-1911) after H. S. Hutton'sdeath; this Miss Holland was her daughter(see below). Butt (1909, p.198) reported thatthe Holland collection was then intact atHarescombe Grange and that Richardsan wasworking on it. Her material came to themuseum via Richardson soon afterwards (alsosee H. B. Woodward 1911). It is not now clearwhich specimens were Holland's, but some,particularly some of the insects, show amarkedly older style of label or numbered tag.HUTTON, Harriet Mary (1873-1937). Harriet MaryHutton was the daughter ofHarriet Sophia Hutton (c.1835-1908; seeabove) and a noted amateur collector in herown right (Torrens 1978h; Cleevely 1983).She lived near Stroud and then Dursley,concentrating on the Inferior Oolite of thoseareas. Her collection contained muchscientifically important material which wasapportioned on her death between the BritishMuseum (Natural History), Gloucester CityMuseum, and Reading University. The BM(NH),then Gloucester, Straud District Museum andfinally Cheltenham are said to have takentheir pick of the remainder, but there is norecord of any such accession at Cheltenham.Other material is in the J. W. Tutchercollection, Bristol City Museum (R. D. Clark,pers. comm. 1988).LINGWOOD, [Robert Maulkin (c.1813-1887)J. ALingwood donated King Arthur's Cave material,together with the Rev. Cornford. He waspresumably either the botanist andentomologist Robert Maulkin Lingwood (Cleevely1983), whose gravestone in Leckhamptonchurchyard records his death on 2 June 1887,aged 74, or possibly Richard Sole Lingwood whois recorded on another gravestone as havingdied on 17 December 1873, aged 60; the latterwas an Annual Subscriber to the CLPI from 1843to 1848. These two Lingwoods are clearlyrelatives as R. M. Lingwaod married anElizabeth Sole in 1836.MAPP, Charles R. (1887?-1955). Mapp wasLecturer in Geology and Geography at St Paul'sTraining College (now the College of St Pauland St Mary). He bequeathed a wide range ofgeological, Egyptological, oriental andethnographical material to Bristol CityMuseum, and most of his library toW. W. Jervis, Professor of Geology at theUniversity of Bristol, and possibly othermaterial to Derby City Museum (BRSMG GeologyFile MAP 1; Cleevely 1983). Much of hisgeological material went to St Paul's College(Dr J. Angseesing, pers. corm. 1984) and samemay have gone to Cheltenham Museum.NEWTON, Isaac (fl. 1903-1921). A Surgeon-Majorin the Indian Army Medical Service, he donatedfossil material which certainly included theholotype of Denckmannia bredonensisS. S. Buckman, 1903 (Cleevely 1983; hut notin the museum's accession records). Hedisappears from CNFC members lists between1921 and 1922.PAINE, A. E. W. (died 1929) [Anon. 1930,p.2031. In 1930 'Miss E. A. Paine donated allthe 8,000 Cotteswolds flints collected by herbrother, the late Mr A. E. W. Paine' (m.Cotteswald Nat. Fld Club, 24, p.16). Theseare mostly worked flints and appear to becurated as part of the archaeologicalcollections. S. S. Buckman named the ammonitePaineia (= Brasilia S. S. Buckman) after him.


PIERSON, Charles (c.1806-1891). The founder ofthe Cheltenham College Museum (see p.189).The Art Gallery Committee Records for 20 June1900 refer to receiving 'the collection offossils presented to the Town by Mr C. Piersonin 1888, and stored at Shirer and Haddon's';this was a 'large and valuable collection'(1st Reoort CHLGM, for 1899-1900, p.24).RICHARDSON, Linsdall (1881-1967). Richardsonhad unique knowledge of the geology of theCotswolds and Severn Valley, producing manypapers and several <strong>Geological</strong> Survey Memoirson the area's geology and water supply. Hislarge collection was widely dispersed and somewent to the British Museum (Natural History),what is now the British <strong>Geological</strong> Survey,Imperial College, and the University ofReading (Cleevely 1983). He made severaldonations to the Cheltenham collection,including sets of borehole samples (see above)and a reprint collection now iq the LocalHistory Library. Some of the Richardsonmaterial was included in the 1946 transfer toBristol. The material now at Cheltenhamincludes collections of serpulids, brachiopodsand belemnites, including material from theSudbury Tunnel originally collected by Vaughan(Cleevelv 1983). ,.and described bv Vauehan andReynolds.STEPHENSON, Rohert (1803-1859). The Museumpurchased a 'splendid collection of minerals. made by the famous engineer Rohert Stephenson'(14th Report CHLGM, for 1913-1914, pp.13,16). Robert Stephenson is known to have beeninterested in metalliferous mining, forexample in Cornwall and Latin America(Venezuela) where he was an early collector,while latterly he was the owner of the coalpit at Snihston, Leicestershire, now awned byLeicestershire Museums Service (Rolt 1978).Unfortunately none of his important specimenshave vet been traced.UPTON, Charles (died 1927). Upton was asolicitor who lived in Gloucester andpractised in Stroud. He later became Curatorof Gloucester Museum. He collected localfossils and appears to have made something ofa speciality of sampling micrafossils, oftencollaborating with Richardson. S. S. Buckmannamed the ammonite after him. It isunclear what happened to his collections afterhis death (Torrens 1979a). The brachiopodswere sold to Gloucester Museum and some morematerial exists in the BM(NH), as well assyntype material of the spongeReniera oolitica now at Cheltenham.WACHSMUTH, Charles (1829-1896). Wachsmuth wasan important collector of crinaids from theCarboniferous of the Northern United Statesand the Museum has a small box of specimensfrom him.WILD, Capt. Rohert Pawley (1882-1946). CaptainWild was trained at the Camharne School ofMines and worked in Cornish mines until 1914when he joined the Army (see biographies inAnon. 1984; N. R. J. 1947). He was Inspectorof Mines in the Mines Department of the GoldCoast (now Ghana) from 1920 to 1938, anddonated some minerals from that area; he hadalready written a handlist of the museum'srock collection (Wild 1920). The Museum hashis retirement 'trophy' of a lump of nativegold on a wooden base. Wild is known to havedonated 'valuable collections' to variousmuseums (N. R. J. 1947) but this may refer toethnographical rather than purely geologicalmaterial. Wild made several donations toCheltenham between 1913 and 1930; othergeoloaical material is also in the BristolCity Museum collection.WILSON, Dr Edward A. (1872-1912) (p.191), theAntarctic scientist. His father donatedspecimens including what appears to be hisson's boyhood collection as well as itemscollected from New Zealand and the Antarcticmaterial collected by Raymond Priestly.Wilson's wife also gave further material. TheMuseum has a selection of Wilson's paintings,personalia and mementoes of the Antarcticexpeditions.WILSON, Dr E. T. (p191 Father of the aboveand a donor of geological material in his ownright, e.g. rocks mentioned by Wild (1920).WRIGHT, Thomas (1809-1884). Wright was asurgeon at Cheltenham Hospital who devoted hisleisure to oalaeontoloev. -,. ~roducineL UPalaeontographical Society Monographs TheBritish Fossil Echinodermata of the OoliticFormations (1857-1880), The British FossilEchinodermata of the Cretaceous Formations(1864-1882), and Lias Ammonites of the British ,(1876-1886). His life predated theCheltenham Town Museum collection but Wright'scollection was dispersed over many years bythe London dealer F. H. Butler (see p.185). Aloose MS sheet in the Cheltenham collectionrecords the discovery of some cigar boxes fullof specimens 'in the cellar at Mr Butler's' in1900; the writer, presumably Henry Bubb JP,in September 1902 'secured ... for theUllenwood Collection' seven Middle Jurassicspecies of brachiopod, noting that otherdrawers of Wright material were still therebut in great disorder.Rescue curationIn 1983 Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museumscontributed funding for the newly establishedAMCSW post of <strong>Geological</strong> Conservator-Preparatorin return for 'conservation' work (which wasfortunately not strictly defined, as the mainpriority turned out to be for curation andstorage rather than specialist conservation).While sme specimens certainly needed remedialconservation, and many required carefulspecialist cleaning, the mast urgent job was tosort out specimens and labels, preserving whatassociation remained and numbering them. Theywould otherwise remain vulnerable to furtherdisturbance.MAT searched the literature, archives andcollection, to prepare a detailed report on thecollection's state, history and content, with aninitial listing of type, figured and citedmaterial. Although with hindsight too detailedfor the immediate need for an assessment andrecommendations for action, it later saved a lotof time by setting the scene for the short-termstaff.


numbers of specimens, and have labels stuck onthe back of the paintings, so that their'rescue' can largely be a matter of restoration,revarnishine - and re~lacement in new storaee. InUcontrast, a geological collection, such asCheltenham was, suffers from interlockedproblems of poor curation, conservation andstorage; for example, removing uncuratedspecimens for conservation could lead to loss ofdata. A dirty specimen which is not getting anydirtier can often he safely left alone but thesame cannot be said about a drawerful of mixedspecimens and labels!Fig. 14. Sylvia Humphrey registeringspecimens on display in Cheltenham ArtGallery and Museum. This case, the soleremnant of the displays set up in 1931-1932by C. R. Mapp, was recently carefullydismantled to make way for the new galleries(AMCSW).MAT'S work at Cheltenham exemplifies many of thepractical problems of pastoral work ingeological collections, notably the need far abroader remit than, say, a fine art conservationservice. To oversimplify somewhat, fine artcollections tend to be much smaller in terms ofAfter consultation with the AMCSW, the Museumallocated f1OOO (45% grant-aided by the AMCSW)in the 1986-1987 financial year for basicdocumentation and sorting of the collection. Ageology graduate, with enough museum experienceto work largely unsupervised, was required.Miss Sylvia Humphrey was engaged to work forfive weeks, mainly at Bristol City Museum, undercontract to Cheltenham. Bristol had theadvantages of providing adcquate workingfacilities and help wirh specialistidentification. usine the Xuseum's lihrarv andstaff (~igs.14~18).The use of a Manpower Services Commission schemewas considered inappropriate in this case.Cheltenham and AMCSW certainly had to pay forthe work, but they benefitted from far greaterflexibility in selecting staff than is possibleunder MSC. In any case, it was just notpossible to provide the kind of day to daysupervision needed by an inexperienced worker,nor the training now demanded under theEmployment Training schemes which have replacedthe MSC. The many 'hidden' costs of time spentin application, supervision and generalbureaucracy were also avoided.Fig. 15. The former geological store in the annexe, showing a mixture of drawered cabinets, open drawetand fibre boxes on Dexion racking (AMCSW).-203-


Fig. 16. Caynor Andrews packing specimens intissue paper and bubble-pack for transportto Bristol City Museum in 1986 (AMCSW).Financial planning had to take into account theneed to make the best use of staff time. Forexample, as much as possible of the first year'sbudget of £1,000 was spent on staff casts, andonly those items required for the current year'swork (or the next) were purchased. Fortunately,labels were already available from Dr Curtis'work on the collection, saving time and money.This allowed some five weeks work (the minimumrealistic length of contract), with a ratio of3:l in labour to other costs.Salary, national insurance andtravelFiling cabinet, etc.£766.8676.75Register book, etc.Packing material for specimens55.40(bubble wrap and acid-freetissue) 98.87Total: £997.88To this must be added the hidden costs of:specimen transport between Bristol andCheltenham (absorbed bv Cheltenham centralbudgets); a significant amount of time spent byPeter Crowther and especially Roger Clark(Curator and Assistant Curator of Geology,Bristol City Museum) in organisation andspecimen identification, and some three weeksspent by me as the AMCSW <strong>Geological</strong> Officer in'once-and-for-all' work, mainly reorganising thefiling system of related documents and writingthe documentation system instructions.Funding a project in such relatively smallannual increments has the potential problem oflong breaks between successive workers. In anycase the museum's own non-geological curatorswould need to know what to do from dav to dav. ,.for example when removing a specimen for atemporary display: We therefore took care toensure continuity by setting dawn full writtenprocedures for documentation, loans andsecurity, and recording all work done.First priority was to sort out the collectionand record the provenance of each specimen asfar as possible. If a specimen and its labelwere reunited by inference, especially bysorting out the contents of a drawer, then thiswas recorded. Same 1,270 specimens were sortedand registered during this initial five weeks'rescue curation. As the only specimens withmuseum numbers were those listed by Wild (1920),a completely new manual documentation system wasintroduced, of numbered specimen, label andentry in a manual register, very similar inphilosophy and design to that later recommendedby Knell and Taylor (1989). It deviates fromthe commonly accepted Museum DocumentationAssociation standard by using separate accessionand registration numbers, where the accessionnumber covers one or more specimens in a singleaccession, and the registration number refers toa single specimen. This system was implicit inthe Bristol-style labels inherited from DrCurtis' work; it has the advantage far aneglected collection that a specimen and itslabel can be registered and linked withoutneeding to know the accession number, or usingan 'artificial' numher (such as 1988.1) whichcomplicates matters when a specimen mayeventually he linked to its true accessionnumber.For broadly similar reasons the filing systemfor related documents uses its own runningnumher for history and other files rather thanan accession number, and specimens arecross-linked to files by the file number. Aplain comments slip was used, as this can besuitably marked for use as a removals slip orloans slip.Indexes or detailed catalogues, whether manualor computer, were not an immediate priority, butcould he added in the future if thoughtnecessary, e.g. to conform to MuseumsRegistration.Sylvia Humphrey carried out a further six weeks'work in the 1987-1988 financial year, using asecond grant-aided allotment of £1000. Shecontinued the work of identifying, registering,and boxing specimens at Bristol, recording afurther 1076 fossils and 647 minerals, andreturning all material to Cheltenham. By thenalmost 3000 specimens had been documented at anominal labour cost of 59p each! A thirdgrant-aided allotment in the 1988-1989 financialFig. 17. Part of the geological store atBristol City Museum, with Cheltenham Museumspecimens in the boxes atop the Bristolracks and spread all over the table forcuration in 1986 (AMCSW).


Fig. 18. Sylvia Humphrey matching specimens to ti leir previously dissociated labels and documenting them inBristol Museum, 1986 (AMCSW).year involved further curatorial work atCheltenham by Roger Vaughan, includingdismantling of the last of the 1930s displaysand the establishment of new storage (on'Bruynzeel' roller-racking) for the curatedspecimens and sediment samples.When basic rescue curation is completed, anyfuture allocations will increasingly have to bespent on new storage and on remedial cleaningand conservation by a specialist conservator(such as that provided bv the AMCSW's:Bristol-based Geology Conservation and AdvisoryService). The present storage isunsatisfactorv: The specimens are packed inunsealed polythene bags in their trays or boxes,and are difficult to get at, although safe fromdirt and abrasion. The question ofenvironmental control for the few dozensensitive specimens will also have to be dealtwith.This steady progress is heartening. The slow,regular tempo of funding - a little at a time -is much easier to squeeze into a budget than aone-off sum, and easier to keep in next year'sbudget, although obviously vulnerable to futurecuts. It does, however, need specialistgeological advice to assess each year'spriorities, provide any supervision, and find orsupply the skilled labour needed (but which maynot be a problem if the current year's budget isspent largely on storage furniture, forexample). Moreover, if other museums in thearea develop the same habit of regular fundingfor theircollection, this would helpthe local Area Museum Council or a consortium ofmuseums to commit themselves to providing aspecialist geological service.Even when no specialists are available, thecollection and its documentation need to bemaintained in a secure manner, with due controlof loans and visitors, and refusal ofunsupervised volunteers. The Cheltenhamaeoloeical -collection has been made the s~ecificresponsibility of one particular past in theMuseum's staff, the Assistant Keeper of FineArt. Its security is thus no longer sodependent on the personal interests of staff.Another very common potential problem arisesfrom the previous close association of theMuseum and Library. A good collection of rarelocal geological books, reprints and periodicalswzs split between the Museum and the Librarywhen the latter was transferred to the CountyCouncil in the 1974 reorganisation of localgovernment. This did not present aproblem atCheltenham. However, cases have arisenelsewhere when the library has moved off withimportant reference material or has even sold itoff as surplus stock despite its value to themuseum.An important justification of the work on thegeological collections is that they therebybecome available for use. Cheltenham is plainlylimited by its lack of a permanent specialistcurator but the geological display has now beenremoved and will be replaced in 1990 with adisplay on the geology, natural history andarchaeology of the area, using advice fromBristol and Gloucester Museums. Anv furtherdisplays will depend an future funding, and anyexpansion of the collection will depend on theappointment of a curator.Nevertheless, exploiting the collection dependsvery much on resolving the problems caused bythe fragmentation of Gloucestershire's museumsinto several District museums, none with a postfor a specialist aeolaaical curator (ignoring . - -temporary posts and volunteers). The onlynatural scientist is a biologist at GloucesterCity Museum, whose interests-were until very


1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1810 l860 1870 1880 :890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1960 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990SPOREBERG -. ?WWE AND IATLOliS. BENDALLl'. JENKINSCLPICC......CNACliNA -CLCCSSPEICAGMsome to Liverpool Museum%-


in August 1985) the particular strengths of theformer Cheltenham College Museum in bothornithology and ethnography. This onecase-history shows that we must insist upon thebest possible standards of documentation forcollections. We also need to use our skills ascommunicators to highlight the importance ofgeology and of the curation of geologicalcollections, both in a recreational and culturalsense.But we can also now be optimistic. The case ofCheltenham Art Gallery and Museum shows thatnon-geological curators can play a part in therescue and maintenance of a geologicalcollection - despite the bitter experience ofthe last forty years which suggested that mostBritish ~rovincial museum curators, faced with ageological collection, either clear it awaywithout more ado, or simply abdicate theirresponsibilities to ill-trained volunteers orMSC schemes. The undoubted competence of manyvolunteers and MSC staff has more to do withluck than the judgement of the curator - theperson who is actually res~onsihle for thecollection. It has become a truism everywherethat almost the only undamaged collections arethose that have heen undisturbed since the1930s! This was certainly so in the case of therelatively small amount of material which hassurvived in Cheltenham. Gaynor Andrews' carefultransfer of the CHLGM collection, despite otherdistractions, was in a way no more than plaincuratorial cornonsense; yet it is quiteexceptional amongst non-geological curators.Perhaps, with advice such as now available fromKnell and Taylor (1989; itself written usingCheltenham as one exemplar and source ofinspiration), more non-geological curators willhe able to follow suit.Nevertheless, the curator alone cannot beexpected to make sensible decisions, let alonespend scarce money, without specialist advice.There is thus an onus on larger bodies such asArea Museum Councils to provide at least somesort of advisory service. Yet once this adviceis given it is still up to the museum to providethe finance and facilities required to implementit. This was done at Cheltenham and is surelythe way to save more such collections.Acknowledeements. During HST's trail afterCheltenham geological material, lasting morethan twenty years, innumerable debts have heenincurred to librarians, curators and recordofficers: in particular, at Cheltenham, toGaynor Andrews, Roger Beacham and Steven andMaggie Blake. The complex history of CheltenhamCollege collections was unravelled with the helpof D. A. Athertan (bursar), Martin Jones(archivist), J. C. Ralphs (librarian),Chris Rouan and Hugh Wright in Cheltenham;Philip Phillips and Peter Morgan in Liverpool;and Mike Barker in Portsmouth. Reminiscencesfrom Philip Peberdy and the late F. B. A. Welchare gratefully acknowledged. David Dartnall(Gloucester Museum) and Dennis Phillips (NaturalHistory Museum, London) also assisted. Vitalsource material was provided by David Allen(Winchester), Miss M. E. Arnold (Northampton),Peter Buckman (Oxford), Clive Hughes(Haverfordwest), Dr W. F. T. Tatlow (Montreal,Canada), Tom Sharpe (Cardiff), John Thackray(London), Malcolm Thomas (London), Tom Vallance(Sydney, Australia), Miss R. Watson(Northampton) and Francis Witts (UpperSlaughter).MAT'S contribution is based on work carried outwhile working as <strong>Geological</strong> Officer for the AreaMuseum Council for the South West (1983-1987).Sam Hunt (Executive Director, AMCSW) andGeorge Breeze (Director, Cheltenham Art Galleryand Museums) kindly gave their permission topublish, but any opinions expressed by theauthors are not necessarily the policy of eitherinstitution. MAT is also grateful toJoe Angseesing, Roger Clark, Michael Crane,Peter Crowther, Micky Curtis, Stephen Locke, andMichael Sims. Finally we wish to pay tributeto Gaynor Andrews and Sylvia Humphrey for theirhard work and enthusiasm.REFERENCESAllen, D. E. 1976. The naturalist in Britain.Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.1987. botanists. St Paul'sBibliographies, Winchester.Annand, A. M. 1971. Cavalry sureeon. Therecollections of De~uty Suraean-General JohnSvlvester FGS Bombay Army. Macmillan,London.Anon. 1837. The Cheltenham Literary andPhilosophical Institution. The ~i;ror ofLiterature, Amusement& Instruction, 29,185-186.-1839. List of Members, February 1839.W C . hot. Ss. Ld. 1, 99-103.----1857. Reoorts of the local committees on- the meetina of the British Association iaCheltenham in Aueust 1856. Davies, Cheltenham.-----1874. Excursion to Cheltenham. m.W., Dec. 2, 1, 523-528.-1888. [Obituary of Sir W. V. Guise.]--Trans. Bristol Glos. arch. Soc. 12, 172-175.-1908. Rev. Thomas Wilkinson Norwood,M.A., F.G.S. Geol. Mag., Dec. 5, 5, 191-192.-1930. Ordinary winter meeting, November19 1929. h. Cotteswold N&. Fld Cluh, 23,203.----1940. Obituary, Charles Irving Gardiner.Ibid, 27, 114-115, p1.3.Argyll, Duke of. 1873. Obituary of ThomasBlaxam. Q. a geol. Soc. W. 29, xl.Arkell, W. J. 1951-1959. A monograph ofEnglish Bathonian Ammonites. Palaeontoer.Soc. (Manaar.) viii + 264pp., 33pls.~shton, 0. 1983. Clerical control and radicalresponses in Cheltenham Spa 1838-1848.--Midland Hist. 8, 121-147.Austin, R. 1928. Cataloeue of theGloucestershire Collection. Osborne,Gloucester.Averlev. G. 1986. The 'Social Chemists'.English Chemical Societies in the eighteenthand early nineteenth century. Ambix, 33,99-128.Baker, T. B. L. 1853. Address read to theCotteswold Naturalists' Cluh Feb. 10 1852.- Prac. Cotteswold Nat. Fld Cluh, 1, 101-114.1860. Address read to the CNFC. January1856. Ibid. 2, i-v.Bathurst, C. and Kinch, E. (eds.).1898.Reeister ef the staff and students of theM Anricultural Colleee 1844-1897. Harmer,Cirencester.


Beaver, S. 1951. The development of theNorthamptonshire iron industry 1851-1930, pp.33-58. In Stamp, L. D. and Wooldridge, S. W.(eds.).essavs in geooravhy.Longmans, Green and Co., London.Bell, A. 1981. Pleasure Town Cheltenham1830-1860. Sadler, Chalfont St Giles.Binfield, W. R. and Binfield, H. 1854. On theoccurrence of fossil insects in the Wealdenstrata of the Sussex Coast. Q. a a. Soc.W. 10, 171-176.Bishop, M. J. 1984. New biographical data onHenry Cliftan Sorby (1826-1908). Earth Sci.- Hist. 3, 69-81.Blake, S. 1982. Georee Rowe, artist andlithoara~her. 1796-1864. The catalogue of Qexhibition. Sutton, Cheltenham.1984a. Views of Cheltenham1786-1860. Cheltenham Art Gallery andMuseums, Cheltenham.1984b. The building of theMontpellier Shops: an outline chronology.- 3. Cheltenham Loc. W. &. 2, 15-20.-andBeacham, R. 1982. The Book ofChcltenhiln.. Barracuda, Bu~kingham.Boisragon, I!. C. 1833. im~ortancc a dadvantages L_r philosophical anouiry. Davies,Cheltenham.Boyle, A. 1967. An index to the Annuals1820-1850. Boyle, Worcester.Brears, P. C. D.1984. Temples of the Muses:the Yorkshire Philosophical Museums 1820-50.Museums J1. 84, 3-20.Brock, W. H. and Macleod, R. 1976. Thescientists declaration: reflexions on scienceand belief in the wake of Essavs and Reviews1864-5. Br. 3. h t .&. 9, 39-66.Brodie, P. B. 1850. On certain beds in theInferior Oolite near Cheltenham. Q. J1 a.Soc. Lond. 6, 239-249.1858. Contributions to thegeology of Gloucestershire. Geologist, 20,81-88.[Buckman, 3.1 1842. triangle: thearchaeoloey. botanv if the mostpicturesaue & interesting s~ots ofCheltenham a& neiehbourbood. Rawlingsand Lake, Cheltenham.Buckman, J. 1843a. A aoloeical chart ofOolitic strata of the Cotswold Hills and Liask the Vale of Gloucester. Davies, Cheltenham.---1843b.List of the fossils foundin the neighbourhood of Cheltenham.Geoloeist, 2, 104-111.1850. On some fossil plants of theLower Lias. p. 51 Gd. Soc. Land. 6, 413-418.Buckman, S. S. 1898. Some recent excavationsnear Cheltenham. Cheltenham Examiner, 4 May1RQR~1899. Report of the collectionof Jurassic fossils in Cheltenham CollegeMuseum. &Q. Cheltenham Coll. nat. Hist. Soc.for 1898, [IO], 45-55.1903. Two Toarcian ammonites.Q. 31 zeol. Soc. Lond. 59, 459-464, pls. 27,28.1906. Bibliographical notes onMurchison's Geologv of Cheltenham. Norman,Sawyer and Co., Cheltenham.Burke, B. (ed.) 1921. Landed Gentrv of GreatBritain (13th edition). Burke, London.Butt, W. 1909. Obituary of Mrs Hutton. m.Cotteswold Nat. Fld Club, 16, 198.Cardew, G. A. 1920. and reminiscencesof medical p~actitioners Cheltenham.Burrow, Cheltenham.Chalmers-Hunt, J. M. 1976. Natural historyauctions 1700-1972: reeister of sales in theBritish Isles. Sotheby Parke Bernet, London.Channan, P. 3. 1950. Mainly geological. U.Nat. Fld Club, 30, 62-69.Clarke, A. K. 1953. A historv of &Cheltenham U' College. Faher and Faber,Cleevely, R. J. 1983. World palaeonrolaei~alrollectians. British %useurn (Natural History)and Mansell, London.Clinker, C. R. 1964. Historv of the GreatWestern Railway. Volume 1. 1833-1863 (2ndedition). Allan, London.Cocks, L. R. M. 1978. A review of BritishLower Palaeozoic brachiopods, including asynoptic revision of Davidson's monograph.Palaeontoer. &. (Monogr.), ii + 256 pp.Colchester-Wemyss, M. W. 1898. Annual addressto the Cotteswold Naturalists' Field Club ...- Proc. C- Nat. Fld Club, 12, 197-208.Coles, H. 1853. On the skin of the9,Ichthvosaurus. Q. 2 geol. Soc. a.79-81, p1.5.Cornfield, R. 1826. Observations on theoccultation of Jupiter on 5 April 1824. m.-. Soc. 2, 89.and Wallis. 3. 1826. Observations~ - -on the occultation of Saturn on 30 October1825. Ibid. 457-458.Cope, J. C. W., Getty, T. A., Howarth, M. K.,Morton, N. and Torrens, H. S. 1980. Acorrelation of Jurassic rocks in the BritishIsles. Part One: Introduction and LowerJurassic. Sue=. Reg. geol. Sac. L a . 14,1-73.Copeland, G. F. 1837. On the fossil zoology ofCheltenham. Cheltenham Annuaire, 1837, 33-41.Cox, L. R.1942. New light on William Smithh. 25,and his work. m. Y-. d.1-99.and Arkell, W. 3. 1950. A survey ofthe Mollusca of the British Great OoliteSeries, primarily a nomenclatorial revision ofthe monographs by Morris and Lycett (1851-55),Lycett (1863) and Blake (1905-1907). Part 2.Palaeontoer. m. W.), xiv-xxiv, 49-105.Crane, M. D. 1985. A biosra~hical dictionaryof the curatorial staff Q£ the [Bristol]Institution. City of Bristol Museum and ArtGallery [unpublished typescript].Crick, G. C. 1902. Note an Nautilus robustusFoord and Crick. Geol. Mag., Dec. 4, 9,342-346.1920. On some dihranchiateCephalopoda from the Upper Lias ofGloucestershire. U. Cotteswold m.U, 20, 249-256, pls. A, B.Davidson, T. 1878. A monograph of the Britishfossil Brachiopoda. Supplement. Vo1.4. Part2, number 2. Palaeontoer. Soc. (Monogr.),pp.145-242, pls. xvii-xxix.1883-1884. A monograph of theBritish fossil Brachiopoda. Supplement.Vol. V. Parts 11, 111. Silurian Supplement.Ibid. pp.135-476, pls. viii-xxi.Davies, H. 1834. Stranger's guide throuehCheltenham (2nd edition). Davies, Cheltenham.1837. The Cheltenham Literary andPhilosophical Institution with notices ofseveral previous attempts to establish similarsocieties in Cheltenham. Cheltenham Annuaire,1837.~17-32.~1843. Straneer'sguide throunhCheltenham (3rd edition). Davies, Cheltenham.


Eliot, W. 1871. List of Field Clubs, being acontinuation of the Address delivered December1870. Trans. bot. Soc. Edinb. 11, 193-255.[Etheridge, R. ] ?1884. Printed leafletoffering the fossil collection of the lateThomas Wright FRS of Cheltenham for sale.[London, no publisher named], 3 pp. [copy inBritish Library Add. MSS 41495, ff. 347-348.1Flotchcr, T. 8. 1916. CotteswoldNaturalists' Field Club 1846-19-6. CottesrioldNaturalists' Field Club. Gloucesccr.Flett, J. S. 1937. The first hundred vears ofthe Geoloeical Survev of Great Britain. HMSO,London.Ford, T. D. (editor of reprint). 1973. m of--Moorland,the Peak by William Adam (1851).Hartineton.Fosbroke; T. D. 1826. A picturesaue a dtonoeranhical- - -account of Cheltenham.a&.iA*. Harper, Cheltenham.Foster, J. 1887-1888. Oxonienses1715-1886. 4 vols. Parker, Oxford.Foster, R. A. 1984. The larger provincialmuseums and art galleries. Pp. 66-75. InThompson, J. M. A. and Prince, D. R. (eds.).Manual of curatorship. Museums Associationand Butterworths, London.Gardiner, C. I. 1914. introduction toe. Bell, London.1923. e. Murray, London.and Herdman, D. W. 1935.Obituary. Jaseph William Gray, FGS. W.Cotteswold Nat. Fld Club, 25, 315.Geikie, A. 1875. Life of Sir Roderick I.Murchison. 2 vols. Murray, London.Gill, L. V. 1903. The Naturalist's Directory,1902-1903 (Seventh issue). Gill, London.[Glover, R.] Contem Ignotus. 1884. The eeldendecade of a favored town ... from 1843-1853.Stock, London.Goding, J. 1863. Norman's History ofCheltenham. Longman, London.Goff, J. 1975. The Camfield familv ofNorthamptonshire. Privately published,Spratton. [Northamptonshire Record Officepamphlet 1222. ]Gray, J. W. 1927. Notes an a collection ofspecimens from superficial deposits, arrangedby J. W. Gray, F. G. S. [abstract]. b.Cotteswold Nat. Fld Club, 23, 109-114.Greenwood, T. 1888. Museums and ArtGalleries. Sim~kin, Marshal1 and Co., London.Griffith, S. Y. 1826. New historicaldescrintion of Cheltenham. Griffith,Cheltenham.Guise, W. V. 1865. [Report of field trip toAlderton and Dumbleton, and a visit to MissHolland's collection at Dumbleton House.]Proc. Cotteswold U. Fld Club, 3, 58-60.1877. Obituarv of D. W. Nash. Ibid.6, 280-281.Hamilton, A. H. [1841]. The visitors newcondensed & to Cheltenham (2nd edition)Rees, Cheltenham.Hart, G. 1965. A historv of Cheltenham.Universitv Press. Leicester.Herdman, D. W. 1931. Cataloeue of thepaintines, etchines a& sculntures ia theCheltenham Art Galler1 (2nd edition). AlcuinPress, Campden.Hibbert, T. and Richardson, L. 1913. The watersupply of Cirencester, Gloucestershire. Proc.Cotteswold U. Fld Club, 18, 175-184.Hunter, A. A. 1911. Cheltenham CollegReeister 1841-1910. Bell, London.Huntford, R. 1979. Scott and Amundsen. Hodderand Stoughton, London.1980. Scott and Amundsen.Encounter, 55, 85-87.Hutchins, S. 1863. The historv and antiouities-- of Dorset. Vol. 2. Nichols, London.S- , N. R. 1947. [Obituary,Captain R. P. Wild]. Q. a.&. Soc. Lond.103. lxiii-lxiv.Jackson, J. F. 1937. Schedule of cave finds[part]. Caves and Caving, l, 48-51.Jardine, W. 1858. Memoirs of Hueh EdwinStrickland with & selection from his nrinted-- and other scientific m. Van Voorst,London.Kam, J. 1958. different from us. BodleyHead, London.Kinns, S. 1889. Moses and *, or theharmonv of the Bible with science (12ththousand). Cassell, London.Knell, S. S. and Taylor, M. A. 1989. Geolonvand the local museum. HMSO, Londan.Kumel, B. 1956. Post-Triassic nautiloidgenera. Bull. Mus. como. Zool. Harv. 114,319-494, 28 pls.Lewis, G. D. 1984a. Collections, collectorsand museums in Britain to 1920. Pn. 23-27.In Thompson, J. M. A. and Prince, D. R.(eds.). Manual of curatorshin. MuseumsAssociation and Butterworths, London.1984b. Museums in Britain: 1920to the present day. Pp. 38-53. Ibid.Llovd, . . 0. 1840. Natural historv etc.Tewkesbury Yearly Reeister &Maeazine, for1830-1839, 1, 443-444.Lucy, W. C. 1888. The origin of the Cotteswold--Club and an e_Etome of j& proceedinas from- its formation to m, 1887. John Bellows,Gloucester.Lycett, J. 1857. The Cotteswold m.Hand-book introductory to their eoloev andpalaeontoloey. Piper, Stephenson and Spence,London.Lydekker, R. 1899. Cataloeue of the fossilRentilia a d Amnhibia -- the British Museum(Natural Historv), Part 2. British Museum(Natural History), London.McKechie, S. 1971. Jacob Snornhere, eiehteenthcenturv artist from Finland. Tabard Press,London.Matheson, C. 1964. Gearge Brettingham Sowerbythe first and his correspondents. J. Soc.Biblionhy nat. Hist. 4, 214-225.Mawe, J. 1832. Wodarch's introduction to thestudv of conchology (4th edition). Longman,London.Meade, L. T. 1895. Girls schools of today 1.Cheltenham College. Strand Mag. 9, 283-288.Moore, D. T. 1981. Some background to theAntarctic geological collections ofCaptain R. F. Scott and Sir E. H. Shackleton.Arch. nat. Hist. 10, 359-360.Morgan, M. C. 1968. Cheltenham Colleee. T bfirst hundred -. Sadler, Chalfont StGiles.Morris, J. 1853. On some sections in theOolitic District of Lincolnshire. Q. Jl d.Soc. Lond. 9, 317-344.and Lycett, d. 1851-1855. Amonograph of the Mollusca from the GreatOolite, chiefly from Minchinhampton and thecoast of Yorkshire. Palaeontoer. S%.(Monoer.), viii + 130, 148 pp., 15 + 15 pls.Moxan, C. 1841. Illustrations of thecharacteristic fossils of British strata.Baillibre, London.


Murchison, R. I. 1834. Outline of the eeologyof the neiahhourhoad ef Cheltenham. Davies,Cheltenham.Murray, D. 1904. Museums. their historv andtheir use. Vol. 1. Maclehose, Glasgow.Nash, D. W. 1837a. On the geology ofCheltenham. Cheltenham M*. 1, 289-292,757-757 - - . .1837b. Medical topography andstatistics of Cheltenham [including ageological map]. m. Prov. med. sg. Ass.6, 251-298.Owen, R. 1840. Report on British fossilreptiles, Part 1. m. a. Ass. Advmt Sci.for 1839, 43-126.Phillips, D. 1977. Cataloeue o_f the t m andfieured s~ecimens of Mesozoic Ammonoidea bthe British Museum (Natural History). BritishMuseum (Natural History), London.1987. Additions the catalogueof tvDe and figured fossil Ce~halopoda in the--British Museum (Natural History). Ihid.Phillips, J. 1865-1909. A monograph of BritishBelemnitidae: Jurassic. Palaeontoer. Soc.(Monoar.), 128pp., 36 pls.Piersan, C. 1858. Private geologicalcollections. Geoloeist, 1, 309.Pigg, C. H. 1953. Cheltenham Colleee Reeister,1919-1951. The College, Cheltenham.Pigot, J. 1822. Directory for Gloucestershire,1822-3. Pigot, London.Pine, L. G. 1956.Peeraee. Baronetaee.- and Kniehtagp (10lst edition). Burke, London.Renton, E. L. and Renton, E. L. 1929.Recordsof Guilsboroueh. T. B. Hart, Kettering.~eynolds, S. H. 1941. Obituary of C. I.Gardiner. Q. J1 geol. Soc. Land. 97, lxxxvi -lxxxvii.Richardson, G. F. 1846.(3rd edition).for beeinnersBohn, London.1851. h introduction toeeoloev (new edition revised and enlarged byT. Wright). Bohn, London.Richardson, L. 1904. A handbook to the- of Cheltenham and neiehbourhood. NormanSawyer and Co., Cheltenham. [Reprinted andrevised edition 1972. Minet, Chichel-ey.]1910a. On two deepwell-sinkings at Leckhampton. Geol. Mag.,Dec. 5, 7, 101-103.1910h. The Inferior Oalite andcontiguous deposits of the South Cotteswolds.b. Cotteswald NA. Fld Cluh, 17, 63-136,pls. 15-21.1913. A deep baring at Kemhle.Ibid. 18, 185-189.1915a. Excursion to TetburyWaterworks. Saturday, September 25th, 1915.Ibid. 19, 25-28, pl. 14.1915h. A deep boring at theWaterworks, Tetbury, Gloucestershire. Ihid.19, 57-66.1915~. A deep boring at ShiptonMoyne, near Tetbury, Gloucestershire. Ihid.19, 49-55.1919. Another deep boring atShipton Moyne, near Tetbury, Gloucestershire.Ihid. 20, 151-159.1929. The country aroundMoreton-in-Marsh. m. peol. Surv. Englandand Wales. --1930. Wells and springs ofGloucestershire. Ihid.and Thacker, A. G. 1920. On thestratigraphical and geographical distributionof the snonees of the Inferior Oolite of theLWest of England. m. Ceol. Ass. 31,161-186, . pls. . 12, 13.and Upton, C. 1913. SomeInferior Oolite Brachiopoda. m. Cotteswold- Nat. Club, 18, 47-58.and Walters, R. C. S. 1922.Lower Lias section at Hayden, nearCheltenham. Ihid. 21, 167-169, pl. 8.Riddelsdell, H. J. and Austin, R. 1919.Buckman's 'Botanv of the environs ofCheltenham' 1844. Ibid. 20, 162-165.et al. 1948. Flora ofGloucestershire. Catteswolds Naturalists'Field Club, Cheltenham.Rolfe, W. D. I., Milner, A.C. and Hay, F. G.1988. The price of fossils. Pp. 139-171. InCrowther, P. R. and Wimbledon, W. A. (eds.).The use and conservation of geological sites.SDec. &Q. Palaeont. 40, 1-200.Rolt, L. T. C. 1978. Georee and RobertSteuhensan. railwav revolution. Penguin,- , . - - -. ..- . . .- , ~[Rowe, G.] 1845. Rowe's Illustrated Cheltenhameuide. Rowe. Cheltenham.Royal Society. 1867. Catalogue o_f scientific1800-1863, vol. 1. HMSO, London.Sanders, E.M. 1914. La &ion & Bristol.~h'eses pr6sent6es $ la Facult6 des Sciences deParis. Jouve, Paris.Saunders, P. 1982. Edward Jenner:Cheltenham 1795-1823. New EnglandUniversity Press, Hanover, New Hampshire.Savage, R. J. G. 1963. The Witts Collection ofStonesfield Slate fossils. b. CotteswoldNat. U Cluh, 33, 177-182.-Sayer, W. 1974. A_ selection of drawinas ofbracbiooods from the collection of LinsdallRichardson Cheltenham Museum and CharlesUDton at Gloucester Museum ... Unpublishedmanuscript; copies in Geology Section ofBristol City Museums and Art Gallery, andCheltenham Art Galleries and ~useum:Skirving, E. S. 1928. Cheltenham Collese-. 1841-1927. The College, Cheltenham.Smith, W. 1817. Stratinra~hical system oforganised f-. Williams, London.Sowerhy, J. 1813. Mineral conchology of GreatBritain. Vol. 1, part 3. Meredith, London.Spamer, E., Bogan, A. E. and Torrens, H. S.1989. Rediscovery of the Etheldred Benettcollection of fossils, mostly fromdurassic-Cretaceous strata of Wiltshire,England. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 141,115-180.Spath, L. F. 1927-1933. Revision of theJurassic cephalapod fauna of Kacch (Cutch).W. geol. Surv. India Palaeont. U, NS, 9(Mem. 2), x + 945 pp., 133 pls.1938. A catalogue gfammonites of the Liassic familyLioaroceratidae. British Museum (NaturalHistory), London.Steward, D. 1986. Cheltenham Art Gallery andMuseum. Geol. Curator, 4, 520.Strickland, H. E. and Buckman, J. 1844.Outline of the geologv of the neiehbourhood ofCheltenham (Revised edition ofR. I. Murchison 1834). Davies, Cheltenham andLondon. [New issue in 1845 with reverseauthorship.]Svmonds, W. S. 1880. Meeting - at King - Arthur'sCave, Whitchurch. m. Woolhoue W. Fldm, for 1874-1876, 15-31.


Tatlow, J. 1821. Memoirs of John Tatlowwritten bv himself 1780-1821. Unpublishedmanuscript in possession of Dr W. F. T.Tatlow, Montreal, Canada.Taylar, M. A. 1987. A strategy to safeguardthe geological collections of the smallermuseum. W. Curator, 4, 413-420.Torrens, H. S. 1976. Charles Callaway(1838-1915). W. a. <strong>Curators</strong> GB, 1,299.1978a. The Sherborne SchoolMuseum and the early collections andpublications of the Dorset Natural History andAntiquarian Field Club. Proc. Dorset nat;- Hist. archaeol. a. 98, 32-42.1978b. Collections andinformation found. 52. HOLLAND. HarrietSophia (c. 1835-1908) later Mrs ~JTTON motherof 52a. HUTTON, Harriet Mary (1873-1937).m. a. <strong>Curators</strong> G a , 2, 128-129.1979a. Upton, Charles(?-1967). Ibid. 2, 189.1979b. <strong>Geological</strong> communicationin the Bath area in the last half of theeighteenth century. Pp. 215-247.Jordanova, L. J. and Porter, R. S. (eds.).Imaees ef the Earth. British Society for theHistory of Science Monograph 1, Chalfont StGiles.1982. The geology ofCirencester and District. Pp. 72-78. InWacher, J. and McWhirr, A. (eds.).Roman occu~ation at Cirencester. CirencesterExcavations Committee, Carinium Museum,Cirencester.1987. John Gilbert (1812-1845)the Australian naturalist and explorer. Newlight on his work in England. Arch. m.a. 14, 211-219.1988a. What price theadvancement of science? James Buckman as aprofessional scientist from 1846 to 1863.Unpublished paper read to the 150th meeting ofthe British Association for the Advancement ofScience, Oxford 1988.1988b. Lost and found. 14.Dr Charles Calloway (1838-1915). M.Curator, 5, 29.In press. Under RoyalPatronage: the early work of John Mawe(1766-1829) in geology and the background tohis travels in Brazil in 1807-10. ProceedinesPrimo Coloauio Brasileira & Historia e Teoria- do Conhecimenta Geolosieo - Campinas 1988.and Cooper, J. A. 1986.Uncurated curators: George Fleming Richardson(1796-1848). M. Curator, 4, 249-272.Trueman, A. E. 1922. Notes on the ammonites[collected by Richardson and Walters 19221.Proc, Cotteswold Nat. Fld Club, 21, 170-174,pl. 9.Venn, J. A. 1940-1954.Cantabrieienses. Part a. 1752-1900. 6vols. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Verey, D. 1978. The & a_ CotswoldParson: ~everenG. E. Witts 1783-1854.Sutton, Dursley.Ward, J. 1893. Notes an archaeology inprovincial museums. No. XXVIII. The CollegeMuseum, Cheltenham. Antiouary, 28, 57-60.Watson, C. M. 1909. The life of Maior GeneralSir Charles William Wilson. Murray, London.wethered, E. B. 1901. Obituary of FrederickSmithe. m. Cotteswold Nat. Fld Club, 14,2-3.Wild, R. P. 1920. Notes on the rock specimensin the Museum. Museum Publication ofCheltenham Art Gallerv and Museum, 1, 1-49.Wilson, E. 1972. Diarv of the 'Terra Nova'Ex~edition Q Antarctic 1910-1912.Blandford Press, London.Witts, F. E. 1842. [Manuscript diary owned byMr Francis Witts of UDD~~Slaughter.1Woods, H. 1924-1931. Amonograph on ;he fossilmacrurous Crustaeea of England. Palaeontoer.Soc. W.), 122 pp., 27 pls.woodward, A. S. 1911. Euthvnotus: a fossilfish from the Upper Lias of Dumbleton,Gloucestershire. m. Cheltenham nd. U.Soc. (2) 1, 322-323.woodward, H. B. 1894. 2 Jurassic rocks ofBritain. Vol. 4. HMSO, London.1911. On a new species offrom the Upper Lias of Dumbleton Hill.Geol. Mag., Dec. 5, 8, 307-311.Wright, T. 1853. On the Cidaridae of theOolites. m. Cotteswold Nat. Fld Club, 1,134-173.1856. On the palaeontological andstratigraphical relations of the so-called'Sands of the Inferior Oolite' . Q. d.--Soc. Lond. 12, 292-325.1860. On the zone of Aviculacontorta and the Lower Lias of the south ofEngland. Ibid. 16, 374-411.1865. Report on Miss Holland'scollection of Lias fossils. m. CotteswoldNat. Fld Club, 3, 153-156.young, G. and Bird, J. 1828. A geolonicalsurvev of Yorkshire c- (2nd edition).Kirby, Whitby.Young, W. 1980. On the debunking of CaptainScott. Endeavour, 54, 8-19.H. S. TorrensDepartment of GeologyUniversity of KeeleKeeleStaffordshire ST5 5BGandTypescript received 25 ~u~ust 1989Revised typescript received 25 November 1989Michael A. TaylorEarth Sciences SectionLeicestershire Museums, Arts and Records Service96 New Walk, Leicester LE1 6TD


APPENDIX 1. Published material formerly in theCheltenham College MuseumApart from the material mentioned byS. S. Buckman (1899) the following fourspecimens are known to have had type, figured orcited status.A. Figured syntype of Procvmatocerassubtruncatum (Morris and Lycett)- LA sinele soecimen of a nautiloid from the GreatOolite of Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire, wasillustrated as the new species Nautilussubtruncatus by Morris and Lycett (1851), norepository being given. S. S. Buckman (1899)found it in the collection of Cheltenham College(see also Richardson 1904, ~~155). In 1942 itwas transferred to Bristol Clty Museum (nowBRSMG Cb2968) far safekeeping by Mr S. D. Scott,the then acting curator of the College Museum,on behalf of the Bursar of the College (BRSMGHistorical File 3119). Nevertheless, Cox andArkell (1950) listed it as still at CheltenhamCollege. Kummel (1956), in a systematicrevision of the group, wrote (p.428) 'thegenotype described and figured by Morris andLycett does not seem to be available' and heillustrated instead a topotype (BMNH 21275),this figured syntype then being effectively lost.Syntype of Nautilus subtruncatus Morris andLycett, 1851, p.10, pl.1, figs. 2, Za.Genotype of Procvmatoceras Spath, 1927, pp.21,'25. . .Cited by Cox and Arkell (1950, p.91, caption toMorris and Lycett, pl.1, figs. 2, 2a) asProcvmatoce~as subtruncatum.B. T- cadus S. S. Buckman'C. I. Cardiner' coll. (not so, see main text),Cheltenham College Museum. Topotype, thus citedand figured by Arkell (1951-1959, pp.91-93,pl.XII, fig. 8a, b). Curated by P. J. Channonin 1950 as no.433 in 'C. I. Gardiner'scollection, Nautilus, Jurassic'. Rescued by HSTfrom the College's teaching collection in 1970,and passed to BM(NM) in April 1981, where it isregistered as C82796.C. O~oelia (Oxvcerites) waterhousei (Morris andLycett)'C. I. Gardner' [sic] coll. (not so, see maintext), Cheltenham College Museum no.146, thuscited by Arkell (1951-1959, p.66). Curated byP. J. Channon in 1950 as no.431 in'C. I. Gardiner's collection,waterhousei (Morris and Lycett)'; itsold registration number was 146. Passed toDepartment of Geology, Portsmouth Polytechnic,and then in November 1984 HST to the BM(NH),where it is registered C89608.D. Nautilus robustus Foord and CrickCrick (1902) cited two specimens of Nautilusrobustus from the College Museum, registrationnumbers 900 and 901. 900 was labelled byS. S. Buckman 'Marlstone. Lac. unknown; butprobably near Cheltenham and possibly AldertonHill'. Buckman thought it might have been thatcited by Strickland and J. Buckman (1844, p.40)as N. obesus. 901 had an original label'Nautilus, Marlstane, Gretton' byJames Buckman. One of these specimens may bethat cited in the Channon MSS catalogue of 1950as new no. 639 Nautilus robustus [N.B.] fromWhitby [sic] but it was not in the PortsmouthPolytechnic collection in 1971 (T. L. M. Smith,chief Acting Curator U,, 12 July 1971).Bath specimens may have to be considered lost.New no. 640, which labelled Stroud, seems tobear an old number of 912 and while a Liassicnautiloid cannot be one of those cited above.APPENDIX 2. Bibliography of the Re~orts of the Cheltenham Collene NaturalHistory Society.The holdings of the following libraries are listed: CC, Cheltenham CollegeBiology Department; Bodleian Library, University of Oxford; Glos, GloucesterPublic Library; BM(NH), British Museum (Natural History) Library; and BL,British Library. Only one issue, number 1, seems to be unique but none ofthese five libraries has a complete set (and Cheltenham Public Library has nocopies of any).For year Published m Holdine institutionsCCBL, Bodleian, CC (notes therevival of the former societyon 15.2.18891Bodleian, CCBL, Bodleian, CC, Glos- ~CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlasBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosDM(NH). . .. CC. . GlosCC, GlosBM(NH), CC, Glos


The BM(NH) set has a note from C. I. Gardinerreports were issued for 1915 to 1919.CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), GlosBMfNHI. GlosBM(NH); CC, G ~OSBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, Glos(~ l;tt. 14.10.1923) statingBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CCBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosBMINH). CC. GlosBM~NH~; CC; GlosBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CCBM(NH), CCBM(NH), CC, GlosBM(NH), CCBM(NH), CCBM(NH), CCBM(NH), CCBM(NH), CCBM(NH), CCBM(NH), CCThe BM(NH) set has a note from C. H. Boutflower (b m. 23.3.1941) statingno report was issued for 1939.No reports were issued for 1942 to 1945 (see 48, p.2).[?l9471 11 BM(NH), CC, Glos[?l9481 16 BM(NH), CC, Glos[?l9491 16 BM(NH), CC. Glos[?l9501 2 7 BM(NH), CC, Glos1?19511 20 BMfNHI. CC. Glos


BOOK REVIEWSEllenberger, F. 1988. Histoire GBologie(Des Anciens 4 la premiere moiti6 du XVIIsihcle), Tome 1. Technique et Documentation -Lavaisier, Paris, viii + 352 pp. ISBN2-85206-457-X. Price 165 French francs.One need not know Frangois Ellenberger in personto realise the enormous and continuous effortwhich has gone into his major work of synthesison the History of Geology reviewed here. Thecontents speak for themselves and certainlysurpass the author's main aim - to contribute toan improvement in the teaching of Geology,through the introduction of a historicalapproach. This is also in perfect accord withthe aim of the French series 'Petite Collectiond'Histoire des Sciences' of which this bookforms a part.The author warns in his Introduction (p. 5) thateven his title may cause astonishment orcriticism, for how can one talk of Greek andRoman 'Geology' without being anachronistic?Apart from Professor Ellenberger's care inalways referring here to 'Proto-Geology', thisinitial contradiction is further overcome by hisown approach. He has chosen to discuss thehistory of the evolution of Ideas and Problemsthat enlivened the debate about the Earth, overthe almost two thousand years that preceded thebirth, in a proper sense, of what we now callGeology. From this point of view, despite'externalist and internalist' debates havingbecome outmoded by recent historiography,Ellenberger's work can be characterised asexcellent 'internalist' history. Withoutimposing restrictive foci or unsurpassablechronological boundaries (which would haveundermined the whole book) the author hassought, and frequently found, a continuity ofideas, concepts and philosophical affiliationsrunning through this long history.The book is divided into four Chapters. Besidesthe Introduction and Conclusion there are twoannotated bibliographies of recent authors andparticularly fine indices of both the ancientHuthors cited and the subjects they considered.These last will allow the book to be easily usedby Anglo-Saxon readers, whose culturalbackground has discouraged the knowledge of evenone 'foreign' language. Chapter I (the Legacyof the Ancients) is devoted to Greco-Romanunderstanding of the Earth and represents aunique contribution, both in quality andquantity, for this kind of book. The ideas ofOvid. Aristotle, Herodotus, Strabon, Straton(here exposed as the author of a remarkable'unifarmitarian' text), Seneca, Pliny,Posidonius among others are discussed through adidactic (from a 'modern' point of view)elassifieation of the subjects they dealt with.This then enables the comparative diachronictreatment adopted later throughout the book.The subjects covered here include: 1, themovement of seas, their infill and erosion; 2,fossils; 3, the heritage of terminology (ofextreme importance and interest for work andworkers on museums); 4, underground rivers,conduits and water sources; 5, earthquakes andvolcanoes; and 6, genetic theories, floods andbiblical texts.Chapter 11 is devoted to the Middle Ages.Despite being the shortest because of theproblems of source material, whether primary orsecondary, it is still very instructive and fullof novel ideas. The author abandons thepreconception commonly found in older books onthe History of Geology, which either omit ordevalue all such mediaeval knowledge.Ellenberger here gives us, on the contrary, abrand new translation (pp. 78-80) of the 10thcentury Arab text by 'The Brothers of Purity andSincerity'. This reveals a vision of time whichis both long and non-catastrophist; it isrightly seen by the author as an anticipation ofthe geostrophic cycle of Hutton. He alsoanalyses the contributions of the 'Fathers ofthe Church' (such as Tertullien, Euskbe deCesarCe, Orosius, Isidare de SQville), of theArabs in general (including of necessityAvicenna, Averrobs, then Al-Biruni and others),of Albert le Grand, Ristoro d'Arezzo, Pietrod'Abana, the highly significant contribution ofJean Buridan and his pupil Albert de Saxe, withsome brief paragraphs discussing the possibilityof Chinese influence on Arab science. Theconclusions of this chapter are enriched by acomparative chart of the ideas of five of themajor schools or scholars discussed in theprevious pages (pp. 108-109).But the book's high points are reached withChapters I11 'The Renaissance' and IV 'The 17thcentury'. These chapters comprise nearly twothirds of the total and provide all fourteenillustrations which so enhance the value of thebook. All of these are opportune and wellchosen and often provide quite newinterpretations. They are never simplydecorative. Despite restrictions imposed by theformat of the book the author here provides amasterful analysis and synthesis in his remarks,comments and comparisons with no sacrifice ofquality. It is a real pleasure to be able toimmerse oneself in the Renaissance 'Geology' ofLeonardo da Vinci, Bernard Palissy, GirolamoFracastoro, Cesalpino, Agricola and others,aswell as the almost unknown (at least to me) Janvan Goro or Goropius. All are revealed throughoriginal texts which have been carefully chosenand beautifully translated for us by the author.In the chapter on the 17th century, NielsStenson, better known as Nicolaus Stenonius orSteno, is the outstanding figure with 83 pagesgiven to him and his work. Here we find anexcellent analytical summary of his concepts,with an attentive survey of his Canis Carchariaeas well as of a part of his Prodramus; of whichagain a new and literal translation has beengiven by Prof. Ellenberger from a copy of theLatin original with an accurate analysis. Thediscussion of Steno's major contribution, to thefoundation of stratigraphy - the core of geology- is particularly valuable. Apart from Steno,Descartes and Gassendi are also discussed inthis chapter. In the case of Gassendi the


comparison of his ideas on fossils with those ofPalissy eloquently suggests the passibility of areal intellectual debt, and raises a problemwhich deserves a thorough investigation in thefuture.In general the book has 80 many positiveaspects. First is the quite excellent primaryand secondary documentation obvious throughout.The excellent survey of 279 authors (quiteovercoming any 'group chauvinism') has allowedsome unknown, forgotten or often underratedcontributions, as those of Gassendi and his workon rocks and fossils, Goropius, Pietro d'Abanoand others, to be reassessed. The role ofChurch censorship in the Renaissance is alsoreassessed (pp. 210-211), and recurrent errorsin existing historiography are highlighted, asin the cases of Alessandro degli Alessandri (pp.169-170) or Steno (pp. 245-248). As the authorsays elsewhere (p. 170) 'at least we have hereone further example of the imperious need toalways return, in the History of Science, to theoriginal sources themselves'. This is indeedthe only way to properly study the History ofScience.1t was thus with some astonishment that we read,in the Introduction (p. IO), the counsel givenearlier by ELlenberger 'if there are readerswishing to throw themselves in their turn intothe History of Geology, they ought to know thatno previous background is needed to accomplishuseful work .... as a task one needs to startwith, to write a historical account, the mostdetailed possible of all that has been writtenon the personality or topic chosen. All therest will follow'. Laudable as this intentionis, it is happily disproved by the 340 furtherpages of this book.The sheer quality of the work presented here isreemphasized in the translations made by theauthor directly from the original sourcesthemselves. In the ease of translations made byothers, we can check these by quality-contral,as in some cases the author has added his ownversion. Because the book is designed as a'compendium' or 'handbook' the impossibility ofgetting down to detail is well balanced by thevaluable references given to other works on theHistories of Geology and of Science in general.In addition there is an analytical Bibliographywith comments at the end of the book and thegeneral introduction to each chapter tries toput into context what is to be discussed. Inview of the intended audience, a preoccupationwith students and the teaching of Geologyrightly pervades the whole book.Another positive feature is the series ofcomparisons of past and present explanations anddescriptions of the geology of particularregions; such as the Tuscan Appenines as seentoday and by Ristoro d'Arezzo (p. 951, Leonardoda Vinci (p. 125) and above all by Steno (pp.311-316). Here the author's long experience asa field geologist has been of particularbenefit. Such an approach to the use of fieldevidence as a source for the History of Geologyshould be mandatory.Finally I would like to express somedisagreements. The first relates to the MiddleAges. Despite the author's efforts to rescuemany fundamental contributions from thepreconceptions and false 'obscurantism' whichhas since befallen them, he still subscribes tosome preconceptions himself, regarding Alchemyand Astrology. Here he has apparently ignoredrecent moves in historiography which have alsoencouraged the 'rescue' and proper understandingof these traditions. We may quote as examples,'paganism was invaded by a growing movement ofirrational belief, with faith in magic orastrology playing a major role' .... 'peopleadore, even more than in the past, the virtuesof stones, heavenly influences, spontaneousgeneration. Hermetic texts reinforce this move,where alchemy equally intervenes' (p. 73) or'even astrology and alchemy pretended to bescientific. Fa talk of a scientific mindimplies the rejection of magic influences,occultism and other superstitions. It would beunfair, however, to blame Arab culture for allthe irrational beliefs which will pervade allthe texts about the Earth, for instance dealingwith minerals, in the West up to the 17thcentury' (p. 85). Even when we are so correctlyreminded that 'the role of the historian is tounderstand and to justify rather than destroy'(p. 92) and that 'even the texts can be readdifferently according to the state of mind andcultural environment of the authors' sometimes,it seems, the author too 'destroys' rather than'understands'; as on page 42: when inGreco-Roman times 'petrifying springs were wellknown ... But here also fiction became mixedwith reality; the objects are often referred toas having been 'transformed' and not simply'encrusted'. Worse still it is said such watercan petrify the bowels. Truly at all timespeople love sensationalism'.We need to understand these changes in points ofview and not evaluate the superiority or degreeof truth involved in each theory, as Prof.Ellenherger so accurately and sensibly himselfsoon points out (p. 93). We can only regretthat his admirable position has been abandonedin a few places. Perhaps the omission of Pietrod'Abano from the comparative chart at the end ofChapter I1 was because he was the only one tobelieve in the spontaneous generation offossils? Even the rejection of astrology byProf. Ellenberger has to be circumvented in thecase of Ristoro d'drezzo, who despite 'being agreat naturalist' (p. 92) was convinced 'thatthe heavens governed all of nature' (p. 93) andso employed his 'scientific astrology', asEllenberger calls it, in the explanation of thenatural world.Such criticisms cannot undermine the realexcellence of this book. It should be requiredreading for all interested in the early historyof our science up to the time of Steno (1669).We were struck with the common contradictionfrom books of quality; volume 1 merely whettedour appetite far volume 2.Silvia Fernanda de M. FigueiroaInstituto de Geociencias/UNICAMPC.P. 6152 - CEP 13081 CAMPINAS/SPBRAZIL3 July 1989


Tresise, G, 1989. The Invisible Dinosaur : '5geolonical detective stary'. National Museumsand Galleries on Merseyside, Liverpool. 32 pp.ISBN 0-906367-37-9. Price E2.95.At the start, let me declare myself. Firstly, Iam not an authority on any branch of geology;secondly, I have become interested in thehistory of science; thirdly, I believe -passionately - that if scientists wish tocommunicate to the public, they should do so inwords that the public understands; andfourthly, I am a fan of Sherlock Holmes.Therefore it will be no surprise to those whocome to buy Invisible Dinosaur, to learnthat I warmed to this book at first sight, andliked it better as I read through it.Between attractively designed and colouredpaperback covers, which feature an the back asnappy piece of blurb and Sherlock Holmesexamining footprints, Dr Tresise (long-time GCGmember) tells a true geological detectivestory: from the discovery in 1838 of hand-likefossil footprints in rocks near Liverpool andthrough the subsequent efforts extending into'this century to find the identity of the animalwhich made them. The puzzling feature of thediscovery, which provided Dr Tresise with theopportunity to call in Sherlock Holmes, was thatno fossil remains of the animal which formed theprints were found in the rocks. As Sir ArthurConan Doyle would have put it - The Adventure ofthe Missing Body!These footprints were the flimsiest ofcircumstantial evidence for the existence of anextinct animal new to science, and there waslittle more that the early scientists could dothan give the invisible beast the name..Chirotherium, meaning 'Hand Animal'. However,the puzzle of the anonymous footprints,discovered during the infancy of geology whenfossils gripped the scientific imagination, soonattracted attention.The solving of the mystery first centred onLiverpool, providing decades of work for localgeological sleuths, but later enquiries switchedto the continent and even the southernhemisphere. As in all good detective stories,there were false leads, erroneous assumptions,flawed reputations and surprising finalevidence; the Invisible Dinosaur Case was notfinally solved until the 1960s. Dr Tresiseoutlines the facts of the investigation frominitial discoveries to final verdict. The firstpage sets the scene and whets the reader'sappetite. He divides the rest of his book intochronological sections, each pithily prefaced bya quote from Sherlock Holmes, and eachdescribing - in a different way - the variousepisodes and clues which finally salve themystery. The numerous illustrations help thereader to follow the technical details. Thisbook is an elegant example of good andeconomical story-telling.A welcome feature of this book is that DrTresise places the Chirotherium.investigationsin their historical and scientific contexts, andoutlines the parts performed by the variousplayers. Thus Invisible Dinosaur is morethan a story of the discovery and interpretationof rare fossils. It is also a brief account ofthe origins and basic laws of geology, of theproblems of reconstructing animals from fossilevidence, and of the principles and pitfalls ofpalaeontological nomenclature. Between thesegeological musings the author interleavesstories of human interest. We read about theReverend William Buckland, the eccentricProfessor of Geology at Oxford University,kneading dough to obtain tortoise footprints,and of the part played for over fifty years bythe amateurs of the Liverpool <strong>Geological</strong> Societyin the long search for the missing body. Thesekind of stories and the use of Sherlock Holmesto lead the reader through the narrative, makesthis book a good read for the non-scientist aswell as the geologist.Noteworthy are the twenty-five illustrations.Zhere are photographs of the fossil footprints(some modern and some from archives), portraitsof the personalities involved and variousreconstructions of Chirotherium, including acolour painting (specially commissioned) of twoof these creatures in their Triassic desert.These are interspersed cleverly throughout thebook and the designers deserve commendation farenhancing the text so neatly.Dr Tresise, Keeper of Geology at LiverpoolMuseum, has presumably written this book for theinterested museum visitor, who has no particularknowledge of fossils nor acquaintance withtechnical words. In the difficult art ofcombining scholarship with popular appeal he hassucceeded admirably and enhances the publishingreputation of the National Museums and Gallerieson Merseyside.A further thought: this book should be on therecommended reading list for geologyundergraduates. For as well as introducing thehistory of geology to the student, this book isa well-crafted and concise investigation of asingle palaeontalogical problem, and is a modelof how to unravel sources, marshal facts, writeclearly and present attractively.There are same possible criticisms. The ratherhigh price (E2.95) will deter some potentialbuyers. The title might upset some vertebratepalaeontologists (Chirotherium was not a truedinosaur as the author admits).The colourreconstruction of Chirotherium is set in a verylonely Triassic landscape, showing just two ofthe beasts and no other animals, whereas thefossil evidence - the footprint slabs - werecovered by tracks made 'by multitudes ofanimals'. But these are minor drawbacks, Irecommend this book. It will give you a goodread, and while it will not make you an experton vertebrate palaeontology or trace fossils, itwill, as far as Chirotherium is concerned,enable vou to murmer the words of SherlockHolmes ifrom Adventure of Silver Blaze)'At least I have ~ - o t a n- ri~ . of the essentialfacts of the case'.Kenneth JamesDepartment of GeologyUlster MuseumBelfast BT9 5AB25 May 1989

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!