here - Geological Curators Group

EDITORIALAt last! After almost a year, the GeologicalCurator returns to its traditional format -'with all your old favourites', as the sayinggoes, like 'Lost and Found', 'Notes and News'(under new management), 'Book Reviews', andCING. I trust that any feelings ofdeprivation resulting from the hijacking ofVo1.4, No.7 by the proceedings of 'TheConservation of Geological Material'conference were offset by the invaluablenature of its contents. Nevertheless, oneunavoidable consequence of its publication asa normal issue of the journal is that thosemore topical elements of our regular featureslose impact through their delayedappearance; another is that the lag betweensubmission and publication of an article inthe Geological Curator has lengthenedunacceptably. Both consequences are plain tosee herein, with 'Notes and News' containingthe odd piece of yesterday's news, notpreviously covered in these pages, and onesubmission date from 1985. Such is life . . . .Members who attended the Srighton GCG Meetinon 'S~ecimen documentation and datastandards', organised by John Cooper (BoothZluseum) in June 1985, heard two particularlythoueht urovokine talks from avid Price(~edgwicir PAuseum, Cambridge) and AndrewRoberts (MDA). Out of the general discussionwhich followed these and othir contributionsgrew a proposal that GCG should seek toestablish a two year research project, basedat MDA. to erect a standardised terminoloevfor the recording of geological specimendata. The funding of such an ambitiousproject is no easymatter and, despite theconsiderable efforts of our precedingChairman, Phi1 Doughty, grant-aid has not yetbeen forthcoming. However, iilick Stanley isas determined as his predecessor to see thiswork go ahead, and he intends to take fulladvantage of the new funding opportunitiesopened up by the Group's recent adoption ofcharitable status. In such circumstances thetwo papers published herein remain asrelevant today as they were two years ago.Through an oversight on my part I neglectedto obtain the necessary permission fromHorsham Museum Society to reproduce a shortpiece by Sylvia Standing from their Bulletin(No.36 , September 1985). which appeared inthe Geolodcal Curator, Vo1.4, No. 5, p.300,under the title 'One way to dig a dinosaur'.I apologise to the Society for this breach oftheir copyright. Sylvia Standing has fleshedout the story of her discovery and brought usup to date in her letter which appears onp.503.Two cheers for the Geologists Association!First they have produced a 2nd edition oftheir wondrous little booklet. the G.A.Director". It has been compiled byChristopher Green (Royal Holloway and BedfordNew Coilege) and arose originally~from theneed to respond to fairly numerous and verydiverse enquiries received by the G.A.office.It covers all manner of topics, noneof them in great depth and inevitably in awork of this size with many omissions.Nevertheless it is an excellent startingpoint for answering all manner of commonquestions (Where can I buy a clinometer?Who sells second hand geology books?) and -here's the best news - the G.A. are happy tosupply muesums with up to 10 free copies, ona first come first served basis.Secondly, the recently established G.A. Fundis contributing a substantial grant in 1987-1988 to support the work of ARtSSEE'sTravelling Geology Curator, with a promise ofcontinuing financial aid for a further threeg years. The scope and formal objectives ofthe G.A. Fund are set out in the Directory;they include 'To provide support forgeological conservation. Such support shallbe available to organisations undertakingpurchase of geological sites for purposes ofconservation; to organisations undertakingthe clearance. maintenance and recording ~- nfsites; and to museums responsible for thecuration of geological material.' Thecontact address for enquiries is TheSecretary, Geologists' Association,Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1V SAGGCG Committee (in the form of a 'gang ofthree' - Chris Collins, David Price and HughTorrens) is in the process of refining itscollective wisdom into a published statementof policy on the care of geological specimens.The document will be publiclylaunched at our Mason Conference on 'Thegeological heritage' at the Annual Meeting ofthe British Association for the Advancementof Science in Belfast this August (see p.485)and copies will be distributed to all memberswith the next issue of the Geological -.Finally, a plea for help. The utility of theGeoloPical Curator is hampered by the lack ofan index (except for vol.1, compiled by BrianPage and Hugh Torrens). Anyone interested inhelping to remedy this, please turn to theend of this issue, p.537.Peter R. CrowtherEditor, Geological Curators' Group15 :%Tay 1987

Geolopical Curator. Vo1.4, No.8, 1987 (for 1986). pp.477-480TOWARDS A COMMON STRATEGY FORGEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTATION: THE M.D.A. VIEWBY D. ANDREW ROBERTSINTRODUCTIONThis paper was presented to the Brighton GCGmeeting, 7 June 1985; it reviews thebackground to the development of acooperative approach to geologydocumentation, the position in mid-1985, andpotential future developments.BACKGROUND TO THE WORK OF THE MDAAND GCGAt the same time as the GCG inaugural meeting(17 May 1974), documentation work by thevoluntary Information Retrieval Group of theMuseums Association (IRGMA) and a researchproject at the Sedgwick Museum wasincreasing. The aims of this work includedestablishing uniform standards for museumdocumentation, designing recording cards andinvestigating the potential of computers,using the Sedgwick Museum as a test bed. Thenewly-expanded research team included RichardLight and myself, with my responsibilitiesincluding liaison with outside bodies.The GCG demonstrated an interest indocumentation from the outset. Soon afterits formation, it decided to convene ameeting on 'museum accessioning procedures,specimen documentation and classification',with the aim of forming a working party toproduce a minimum code of practice foraccessionine rteolozical material. BrendaCapstick (Secretary of the MuseumsAssociation) drew IRGMA's attention to themeeting, as a result of which I was invitedto attend. Speakers at that first geologydocumentation meeting on 13 December 1974included Alan Smout (Brighton). mvself(IRGMA), Peter Embrey (IBMNH) aid MichaelBassett (National Museum of Wales). Althoughit did agree to form a documentation workingparty with two subgroups to examinemineralogy/petrology and palaeontology, theactual formation of the working party wasdeferred due to lack of time (Anon 1975a).Meanwhile, IRGMA was on the point of testingdraft record cards; a design for geology hadbeen drawn up by a working party includingJohn Cutbill (Sedgwick Museum), Peter Friend(Sedgwick Museum). Bob King (LeicesterUniversity), Ian Penn (Institute ofGeological Sciences), David Williams (BMNH)and myself (IRGMA).Soon after the December meeting, IRGMAinvited the GCG to cooperate in a two-dayworkshop on geological cataloguing, which wassubsequently held at Cambridge on 20-21 March1975 (Anon 1975b). It was attended bytwenty-five delegates, and concentrated on adiscussion of the design and use of draftgeology and mineral record cards. There waslittle consideration of the accompanyingbrief instructions or the implications of theneed for strict terminology control, andthere was no reference at all to the role ofthe cards as just one component of an overalldocumentation system, including collectionsmanagement.These draft specimen record cards were thentested and revised during 1975, finally beingpublished in Jandary 1976. The currentversions supplied by the MDA are identical tothe 1976 print: well over 300,000 have nowbeen distributed to perhaps 100 museums,including 15,000 in the last year.In September 1975 a further meeting was heldin Sheffield, organised by the GCG incooperation with the Nature ConservancyCouncil (NCC) and IRGMA, to examine theproblem of site documentation. Speakersincluded representatives of the NCC. MickStanley (then at Derby City Museum), MikeJcnes (Leicester) and myself. The second dayconsisted of a discussion and revision of adraft MDA geology locality record card. Theplan to establish a National Scheme forGeological Site Documentation was alsoimplemented, with Mike Jones and John Cooperbeing instrumental in establishing a list ofrecording centres. Details of the schemewere given in a GCG special publication(August 19761, including examples of recordcards and computer catalogues and indexes.The agreed field and site record cards andinstructions were then issued in June 1977.The Museum Documentation Association (MDA)was formed in 1977 to provide nationalcoordination for the development ofdocumentation, maintaining an overalldocumentation system including datastandards, record cards, proceduralguidelines, etc. By 1985, the MDA had builtup to a unit with ten staff (compared withfour in 19171, supported by subscriptionsfrom members, income from services andspecific research grants. Advisory supportnow includes visits, seminars, liaisonbetween museums, maintaining systems anddeveloping new publications. Servicesinclude a wide and diversified range ofpublications; a computer bureau, nowresponsible for over 250,000 records fromover twenty museums (with geology projectsincluding processing palaeontology, mineraland rock records for the Ulster Museum,Belfast: . Tvne " and Wear Countv MuseumService; Hunterian Museum, Glasgow;Wiltshire Librarv and Museum Service; KentCounty ~useum'service; and the RoyalScottish Museum, Edinburgh); and the supportof computer packages such as GOS, an objectapplication of which is used by the bureau.and a locality application of which has been

designed in cooperation with DerbyshireMuseum Service for processing the county siterecords, including those for geology sites.The original specimen and locality cardsreferred to earlier are still available: theoriginal instructions underwent a revision in1980; procedural guidelines for all types ofcollection have he& developed since then(e.g. Museum Documentation Association 1981).Reference should also be made to theGeological Record Centre handbook which waspublished by the MDA on behalf of the GCGThe instructions designed to accompany eachrecord card were intended as a startingpoint, with users being encouraged to developtheir own detailed applications as a specificset of so-called internal conventions. TheHunterian Museum and Tyne and Wear CountyMuseum Service were brave enough to publishthe results of these internal discussions asthey affected geology recording (McInnes1978; Pettigrew and Holden 1978). Thelatter have since been updated.Interest in common documentation standardswas rekindled in June 1980 when the GCGconvened a further meeting at the IGS inLeeds. Soecific contributions coveredproblems in documenting palaeontological,mineralogical and petrological material,collectio< research work and sitedocumentation (Roberts 1980). Although themeeting concentrated on a series ofindividual presentations, there wasconsiderable concern about the lack ofuniform terminologies and a correspondingwillingness to accept proposals forstandardisation.Partly in response to this meeting, the MDAand GCG then called individual sessions onmineralogical terminology (November 1980 atBMNH) and the use of the geology record card(June 1981 at BMNH) (Roberts 1981a, b). Themineral meeting included a useful discussionof the relevant data categories andterminology, based on a paper prepared byPhilip Doughty. The geology meeting tendedto concentrate more on users' experience inapplying the MDA geology card. Both meetingsresulted in significant proposals to improvethe record cards and a stress on theimportance of more specific agreed recordingconventions.It was assumed that the MDA would then take alead in revising the cards and developing new,more detailed instructions, but in practiceother urgent projects intervened and therewas no opportunity to make progress. It ispossible that the lack of activity wasfortuitous. since there has been aconsiderable change in attitude towardsdocumentation in the intervening years. TheMDA is certainly much more aware of theimportance of an overall approach, with acatalogue record being just one of thecomponents of a full documentation svstem.covering the collections management andcuration of enquiries, acquisitions and loansfrom the time a specimen first comes into themuseum through all aspects of its subsequent~rocessing. The broadening of remit isillust~ate(~ by n~anunls suchas Prnctical\Iusoua l)ocu~nur~tarion (YDA 1981) and the majornew report commissioned by the OAL, Planningthe documentation of museum collections(Roberts 1985). It is also shown by thedesign of recording forms for controllingincoming specimens, the transfer of ownershipand any loans of specimens out of the museum.There has also been a growth in the use ofcomputer systems, with a number of museumsnow processing records through the MDAbureau, or - like Brighton, Leicester and theSedrrwick. Hancoclr and Manchester Universitvmuseums - adopting local facilities. Theavailability of effective microcomputers islikely to accelerate the trend towards thecomputerisation of at least some aspects ofthe museum's documentation procedures.One area which the MDA bureau hasconcentrated on is the development of systemsand expertise able to take data fromdifferent museums using different types ofcomputer with different programs, and to readand then massage this data into a uniformstyle. We aim to be able to take data from awide range of individual systems, insert itinto the data structure we have developed,and from this produce cooperative cataloguesand indexes. The problem in such acooperative exercise comes when you look atthe data itself and compare the syntax andterminology control conventions which museumshave already adopted. The rationalisation ofthese differences would require significanteffort and intellectual intervention, but itwould still be possible.COOPERATIVE PALAEO-CATALOGUE AND INDEXESAs an exercise, we took around fifty recordsfrom six of the current palaeontologyprojects dealt with by the bureau andproduced a set of catalogues/indexes. Theprojects were from:Ulster Museum, Belfast (BELUM)Kent County Museum Service (KENTM)Royal Scottish Museum (RSM)Trowbridge Museum (Wiltshire MuseumService) (TRWBM)Tyne and Wear County Museum Service(general and Old Collection) (TWCMS)The average size of the records in theseindividual projects ranged from 173 to 445data characters:173 Kent310 Ulster Museum340 Tyne and Wear (general)363 Royal Scottish Museum384 Trowbridge Museum445 Tyne and Wear (Old Collection)Despite differences in recording style andstrategy in the catalogue records from theindividual projects (see Table l), a set ofcumulative indexes were produced successfully.

Table 1Simple nameBELUMKENTMRSMTRWBMTmCMSClassified nameRecording conventionsfossil'group name'no entryfossil & 'group name'fossil & 'group name'BELUM full name A&B&CKENTM genus species A BRSM full name A&B&CTRWBM local classification(full name recorded in another field)TWCMS fullname ABCPlace nameBELUMKENTMRSMTRWBMTWCMSStratigraphy (age)BELUMKENTMRSMTRWBMTmCMSplace & town & county & province & countryplace & countysite & lace & town & country & provinceplace & countyplace & town & countygeneral to specificgeneralspecific to gcneralgcneralgeneral to specificCURRENT POSITIONPublished cooperative documentationfacilities now available include the MDAcards, instructions and procedural manualsreferred to earlier, and the new GCGGuidelines (Brunton a. 1985). From thedrafts I have seen of the documentation partof the Guidelines, they clearly represent animportant contribution to the professionalliterature, which should be an essentialreference for every geology curator (and forthe far larger number of non-geology curatorshaving to care for geology collections).Without detracting from the effort put in byother individuals, John Cooper deservesparticular credit for the work he has devotedto the documentation section.The procedural recommendations in theGuidelines appear to be compatible with theMDA recommendations in Practical Museum~~ ~ ~ ~~Documentation, giving advice on entry,acquisition and individual specimendocumentation. There is &o extensiveinformation on the strategy to adopt whenbuilding up a specimen record, includingdetails on further sources of information,which goes a long way beyond the basicdetails in the MDA instruction books.Some curators may view the documentationGuidelines as an alternative approach orcompetitor system to that of the MDA. As Ihave just indicated, in reality there is aclose underlying commonality, and I stronglywelcome the new publication. My only regretis that there has not been closercollaboration with the MDA by the developersof the report. With minor extension of thetext, partly in the form of an appendix, itmight have been possible to see theGuidelines as superceding the MDA cardinstruction books.FUTURE DEVELOPMENTSAlthough representing an important stepforward, I feel the guidelines are only partof the answer to a common documentationstrategy for geology curators andcollections. We have prepared ideas for aresearch project to continue the development,and would be interested in the views andadvice of GCG members. The project wouldcover three areas of interest:1, to investigate the geology specimen andsite documentation procedures currentlyused by museums;2. to develoo and publish detailed agreedconventibns concerning specimen and sitedocumentation procedures, and to identifyhow. individual -museums can chance - fromtheirexisting approach to the newposition:3, to examine the role of cooperativecatalogues and indexes of geologyspecimens and sites, and investigate thefeasibility of developing such products.The plan would be for a research assistant tobe based at the MDA for perhaps two years,ahle to draw upon our expertise and libraryand computer system resources, and work withGCG members throughout the country.In the case of the procedural work, I wouldenvisage the project looking in detail ataspects such as:data standards for specimens and sites:terminology rules and lists including- conventions for naming specimens at the- -simple name level- recommended strategies for applyingtaxonomic rules- stratigraphy rules and term lists- place name rules and gazetteersSources would include existing museumconventions, published taxonomies andgazetteers, and the manuals that have beenbuilt up by the international bibliographicsystems.I must stress that we will only pursue thisplan if there is an agreement with the GCGthat it was appropriate and necessary, andwith the full involvement of GCG members.there is this feeling, then the MDA willapproach the GCG Committee to discuss howbest to proceed and how to generate funds.REFERENCESAnon. 1975a. Grou~ seminar on accessionineprocedures: ~ d ~ 1984. e c Newsl. g&.Curators -, 1, 85-87.If

Anon. 1975b. Workshop on geologicalcataloguing. Ihid. 138-150.Brunton. C.H.C., Besterman, T.P. andCnoDer, J.A. 1985. Guidelines for thecuration of geological materials. m.W. geol. Soc. 17, approx. 200pp.Cooper, J.A., Phillips, P.W., Sedman, K.W.and Stanley, M.F. 1980. GeologicalRecord Centre handbook. Museum--pDocumentation Association. Duxford.vii+65pp.McInnes, C. 1978. The Hunterian IRGMAgeology vocabulary and grammar. MDA Inf.2(2), 11-17..Museum Dncumentation Association. 1981.Practical museum documentation (2nd ed.).Museum Documentation Association,Duxford.Pettigrew, T. and Holden, J. 1978. Internalconventions used with the IRGMA geologyand mineral specimen cards in thedocumentation of the geology collectionsof Tyne and Wear County Council Museums.News!. a. Curators W, 2(3), suppl.2 6 ~ ~ .Roherts, D.A. 1980. Documentation ofgeological material - towards a commonstandard. MDA Inf. 4(5), 28-31.1981a. MDAIGCG mineraoloaicalterminology meeting. Newsl. m.Curators m, 3, 10-13.1981b. GCGIMDA worksho~ ongeology documentation. Ihid. 3. 74-76.1985. Planning the documentationof museum collections. MuseumDocumentation Association, Duxford.vi+568pp.D. Andrew RohertsMuseum Documentation AssociationBuilding 0347 Cherry Hinton RoadCambridge CB1 4DH~ ~ ~ e s creceived r i ~ t l2 July 1985FORTHCOMING MEETINGSWed. 26 August 1987GCG Mason Conference at British Associationfor the Advancement of ScienceAnnual MeetingThe Geological Herita~eUlster Museum. BelfastGeology and Irish Society - Prof. GordonDaviesHawking history: the use and abuse ofgeology's past - Hugh TorrensThe rocky horror show: a betrayedheritage - Philip DoughtyCliffs, cuttings and holes in the ground:geological site conservation in NorthernIreland - Joseph PurphyA bewildering choice: British buildingstones - J.H. McD. WhitakerThe geological townscape - Eric Rohinson'Carved in bright stone' - Michael StanleyContact: John Wilson, Department of Geology,Ulster Museum, Botanic Gardens, BelfastBT9 5AB.Thu.-Fri. 1-2 October 1987GCGIGeological SocietyIPalaeontologicalAssociation---The use and conservation of DalaeontologicalsitesGeological Society, LondonA meeting to address the problems ofpalaeontological site conservation and thesolutions applied to them by a variety ofindividuals, governmental and nongovernmentalorganisations. Speakers willinclude:Michael J. Benton (Queen's University,Belfast)Tristram P. Besterman (Plymouth City Museum)George P. Black (George Black Associates)Christopher J. Cleal (Newbury, Berkshire)John C.W. Cope (University College, Swansea)Angela C. Milner (British Museum, NaturalHistory)Eric Robinson (University College. London)W.D. Ian Rolfe (Royal Museum of Scotland)Maggie Rowlands (Cleobury Mortimer,Shropshire)Michael A. Taylor (Leicestershire MuseumsService)William A. Wimbledon (Nature ConservancyCouncil)Stan Wood (Mr Wood's Fossils)Contact: Peter R. Crowther, City of BristolMuseum and Art Gallery, Queen's Road,Bristol BS8 1RL (tel. 0272 299771).

Geological Curator, Vo1.4, No.8, 1981 (for 1986), pp.481-483DOCUMENTATION AFTER 'THE GUIDELINES'BY DAVlD PRICEI would ask those reading what follows tobear in mind that it was never composed as aformal piece of writing. Being prevented atshort notice from attending the 7 June 1985GCG meeting at Brighton, I hastily producedmy promised talk as an audio tape recordingfrom very skeletal notes. What resulted wasno doubt a rather idiosyncratic andrhetorical performance but one in which Imade a number of points that I considered tobe important - even though they might beregarded by some as contentious. In thesecircumstances and because I was not presentto answer questions, explain, defend orqualify my assertions, I have considered itmore honest, rather that writing a toned-downand formalised version, simply to produce arecord of what I said.Chairman, ladies and gentlemen . . . .Like most of you I have not been concerned inany way with the preparation of theGuidelines for curation of geologicalmaterials [Brunton a. 19851. Like mostof you I have simply been waiting on theside-line, looking forward eagerly to theirappearance. 1 felt very privileged,therefore. to be allowed a oreview of Dart ofthe Guidetines - the '~ocuientation an2Information Retrieval' sections. And on thebasis of these sections at least I can quitedefinitely say that the Guidelines are warmlyto be welcomed. To be welcomed as exactlywhat the title 'Guidelines' implies - notvague generalities, nor inflexibile,doctrinaire instructions. What we have is astatement of the generally acceptedprinciples and ideals of museum documentationand a criticial discussion, withrecommendations, of particular practices inthe light of these. What emerges are anumber of what can be called 'good practices'.The way that the Guidelines are laid-out,point by point in enumerated sections,effectively compels any curator reading themto appraise his own system point by point andask 'how do my practices measure up to theones - the 'good practices' - recommendedhere? How do l cope with acquisitiondocumentation, with specimen marking, withlabels, with specimen movements and loans?',and so on. Again what emerges, byextrapolation, from the various recommended'good practices', is some idea of whatconstitutes a good overall system - notgood system, not the 'ideal' system - thereis an acceptance at many points in theGuidelines that there is more than one way toskin a cat - but a system that effectivelyachieves the aims of good documentation.and reliable information as possible in sucha way that it is securely linked to itsspecimen or specimens and yet able to bereadily updated and able to be easilyretrieved under a variety of headings. Anycurator reading the Guidelines is bound toconsider how his own system does these thingsand whether it could do them better. Yes,whether it could do them better - because themain concern of the Guidelines is withqualitv of documentation. If the standard ofdocumentation is high, then the implicationis that the actual method of documentationdoesn't matter too much. Well, that's asensible and pragmatic approach. Itacknowledges the variety of current practicesand addresses itself in spite of this varietyto all geological curators. And I don't seehow, if the Guidelines are widely read, theycan fail to help improve standards.And the achievement of a high standard ofdocumentation in each individud museumimportant; is very necessary to what the GCGis about. Necessary but not, I would argue,sufficient: not sufficient because ascurators we have aims which extend beyond ourown individual museums.Let me go back to that statement I tried tomake about good documentation. I said thatthe aim is to capture and record full,accurate and reliable information, to link itsecurely to the specimens it relates to andyet to do so in a such a way that it is ableto be readily updated and readily retrievedunder a variety of headings. Within a museumthat might be sufficient but 1 left out onevery important factor - I should have ended'able to be readily retrieved under a varietyof headings and made widely available topotential users'. We are the custodians,with our museum catalogues, of massiveamounts of geological data, and we have theobligation to make that data as widelyavailable as possible; to publish anddistribute comprehensive catalogues - I don'tjust mean type and figured catalogues (theyare a start but barely scratch the surface) -and not just catalogues but the wide varietyof indexes necessary to make them fullyusable.We cannot do this by traditional means, thatmuch we have surely proved. Our failure todo so is one causal factor in the terribleneglect of our geological collectionsdocumented in the State and Status Report[Doughty 19811. The need to do so forces usto take advantage of the rapidity andeffectiveness of computer-based datahandling. The method matter.It is perhaps rather foolish - and certainly What has this to do with standardization?less than adequate - to try to encapsulateAll right, we will have to resort to computerthose aims in a brief statement but .. let technology to produce catalogues and indexesus say that in a good documentation system we but, as lonl: as we produce these and asaim to capture and record as much accurate long as they are intelligible, does it matterif we all do it in rather different ways?

curation of geological materials. m.b. geol. Soc. 17, approx. 200pp.Doughty, P.S. 1981. The state and statusof geology in U.K. museums. Ibid. 13,118pp.Museum Documentation Association. 1980.Geoloav specimen card instructions.Museum Documentation Association,Duxford, 51pp.David PriceSedgwick MuseumUniversitv of CambrideeDowning StreetCambridge CB2 3EQTypescript received 2 October 1986OLD LABELS ARE OLD HAT!?BY RON J. CLEEVELYWith the resurrection of the InformationSeries in this issue of Geol. Curator, it isprobably worth examining the original objectof providing such reference sheets, asoutlined in my introductorv article (Cleevely1981). Judging from the lack of any realresponse, this would seem to have beenmistaken, or at the least illusory.Variousopinions as to the value and significance ofspecimen labels were given as a basis forintroducing the series and several of thesehave been repeated by Brunton & A. (1985).Having been unable to accommodateillustrations of collectors' labels in myinitial revision of Sherborn's (1940)-- is the Collection? (Cleevely 19831,I hadhoped to Drovide a series of reference sheetsthat mighi be of assistance in identifyingmaterial. The intention was to feature'examples of the distinctive andcharacteristic labels used by collectors,dealers and curators of the past'. It wasalso felt that others should be asked tocontribute rather than simply featuringlabels found in BMCNH) collections. However,for various reasons, largely the practicalones of producing suitable examples for thereference sheets, the idea has never caughton. The quality of reproduction veryprobably limits the value of the examples ofhandwritten labels, and very few museums canexpect to have specimens from the morewell-known collections - even by mischance!Consequently, the labels featured to date areprobably considered to be irrelevant to theneeds of the general curator.It may be that the most valuable referencesthat can be provided are examples of thelabels used by various dealers over theyears, e.g. Louis Saemann adopted differentdesigns to accompany the specimens he sold.Alternatively, if each of the museums holdingfossil or mineral collections was asked inturn to provide examples of the labels usedbv six collectors reuresented in itshAldings, it might de possible to achieve theoriainal obiective of producina a worthwhileand extensive reference serie'i. Perhaps yourviews on these and other ideas can be givento the members of GCG Committee, or else sentto me?As a probable 'swan song' I intend to adopt athematic approach for the next issues in theseries and produce examples of labels in theBMCNH) belonging to collectors of Chalkfossils.A list of the collectors dealt with in theseries to date is given below, together withanother of those featured in my introduction(Cleevely 1981).REFERENCESBrunton, C.H.C., Besterman, T.P. andCooper. J.A. 1985. Guidelines for thecuration of geological materials. -c.m. geol. Soc. 17, approx. 200pp.Cleevely, R.J. 1981. An introduction tothe new information series on oldgeological collection labels. m.a. Curators m, 3, 77-87.1983. palaeontoloeicalcollections. British Museum (NaturalHistory) and Mansell. London, 365pp.Sherborn, C.D. 1940. Where is the **collection? An account of the variousnatural historv collections which have----come under the notice of com~iler.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,149pp.Ron J. CleevelyDepartment of PalaeonotologyBritish Museum (Natural History)Cromwell RoadLondon SW7 5BDTypescript received 6 November 1986

Pig.1.An assortment of Collection and Dealer labels.A, printed label of dealer N. Boube'e, Paris. B, one of the labels used by J. Ward (see InformationSeries, No.9; Geol. Curator, 4, 38). C, an adhesive ticket label. D, decorative distinctive dealerticket label thought to be that of the Swiss dealers Greber, Wendler & Co. (similarly titled laterexamples exist in the .BMNH). E, printed specimen label used by United States Geological Survey for theirduplicate material. F, hand-written pillbox-top label from J.F. Walker collection (see InformationSeries, No.1). G, a cut-down printed locality label used by the dealer Louis Saemann, c.1867. H, allpurpose label used by the dealer B. Sturtz, Bonn, c.1867. I, printed specimen label used by the earlierVienna Museum accompanying material acquired by the BMNH in 1861, J, an example of the various labelsused by C.O. Groom, who adopted several grandiose titles (see Cleevely 1983, p.138; and -1. m.Curators m, 2, p.465). K, an early label of the well-known international German geological dealers (see- Der PrBparator, 30, pp.221-226). L, printed label used by the Belgium collectorldealer A.S. Piret (seeCleevely 1983, p.233). M, hand-written label from collection of H.A. Nicholson (see Information Series,No.4).

GCG INFORMATION SERIES: COLLECTORIDEALER LABELSNo.Vol. Pt.Compiler1. J.F. WALKER3 (213)Nov. 1981RJC2. William BEAN3 (213)Nov. 1981RJC3. A.V. KLIPSTEIN3 (213)Nov. 1981RJC4. H.A. NICHOLSON3 (4)June 1982RJC5. Jules MARCOU3 (4)June 1982RJC6. JosephWRIGHT3 (5)1982RJC7. Thomas DAVIDSON3 (5)1982RJC8. J.E. FORTLOCK3 (6)1982SJT9. John WARD4 (1)1984MG10. Fredcrick BARKE4 (1)1984MG11. J.T. WATTISON4 (1)1984MG12. Rev. Dr. John ANDERSON4 (8)June 1987DhIB13. R.H. TRAQUAIR4 (8)Junc 1987RJCLABELS featured by Cleevely (1981)IPRINTED LABELS ofHans SCHLESCH (1.891 - 1962)B. STURTZ (1845 - 1928) (Dealer)K.K. Mineralien Kahinett (1806 - 1851)Thornas Gabriel BAYFlELD (1817 - 1893)J.E. ASTIERAdolphe S. PIRET (Dcaler)N. BOUBEE (Dealer)IHANDWRITTEN 1,AIIELS ofAlphonsc MICHALETG.C. CRICK (1856 - 1917)L.F. SPATH (1882 - 1957)SS. BIJCKMAN (1860 - 1929)G.W. LAMPLUGII (1859 - 1926)WHEELTON HIND (1860 - 1920)Graf von Georg MUNSTEH. (1776 - 1844)Anton SCHRAMMEN (Dealer)

BY C. HOWARD C. BRUNTONFollowing Bernard Owens's article 'Fossils onthe move' (1986. Geol. Curator, 4, 290-2911,and stimulated by some enquiries, it may behelpful to indicate the present whereaboutsof the collections for which the BritishGeological Survey were responsible until thetransfer of the Geological Museum from NERCto the Trustees of the British Museum(Natural History) on 1 April 1985. Whatfollows is information from Bernard Owens andHugh Ivemy-Cook of BGS. Keyworth andcolleagues in the BMCNH), including theGeological Museum.Briefly, although the GM building with itscuratorial and education staff weretransferred to the BMCNH), most of thematerial (including the library) remains withthe BGS and has gone to Keyworth. Mostmaterial on exhibition remains under BGScontrol and will go to Keyworth as exhibitsare revised. Some rock and mineralcollections have come to the BMCNH), as wellas some overseas palaeontological material.PALAEONTOLOGICAL COLLECTIONSAll collections that were in the GeologicalSurvey Museum, Exhibition Road, London, arenow at the BGS site at Keyworth, NottinghamNG12 5GG. All material from the third floorgallery of the GSM, together withCarboniferous and Permian fossils from Leeds,are together in the new accommodation atKeyworth, and by Easter 1987 it is hoped thatthey will be unpacked. However, at leastuntil Easter people wishing to see materialshould provide adequate warning to allow timefor looking out of specimens.Data Centre, Keyworth. All outstanding loansshould be returned to Keyworth. Borrowersnow need to obtain a waiver from BGS whichmust be signed by the head of theirdepartment stating that the loan is for- fide academic research. Without the waiver acharge will be made for looking out material.Persons wanting to refer to BGS material inpublications are requested to seek advicefrom BGS prior to publication. There aremany ways by which specimens should be cited,but on all occasions the BGS address shouldbe provided at an appropriate place in thetext, and specimens quoted as, for example,BGS GSM 123456; BGS Zt 2411 etc.A small amount of foreign palaeontologicalmaterial has been passed to the BMCNH) whichwas stored in the GM by members of staff forwhom it had research imoortance. Reauestsfor information concerning any of the fossilcollections at the BM(NH) should be addressedto the Keeper of Palaeontology or to the headof the section involved. A long establishedloan procedure exists and normally loans areonly made to persons in establishedinstitutions.MINERALS AND ROCKSMineral specimens of the Mineral Inventory,Ludlam. Nevill and Lindsev collections. bothdisplayed and stored, havk passed to theDepartment of Mineralogy, BM(NH). Requests -for material or information from thesecollections should be addressed to the Keeperof Mineralogy, BMCNH), for consideration.Some specimens on display form part of thecollections retained by BGS, so enquiriesshould first be made to the Curator,Geological Museum, although ultimatepermission to treat any material rests withBGS, Keyworth.The extensive UK surface exDosurecollections, ~)lus ~nicr~op~rlircontologio~l ilndpnlynologi(:t~l coll(:ctions ;iru now all houst~lat Kcywol'th. Matvrials rt:lcvo~!t to Scotl:irtdand tlre (:ontinent.~l S111:lf 1lydr:rcnrl~onHorcholo pl'oject nr(: storrcl nt I:(linh~irch. Rocks from the Regional Bay gallery have allgone to Keyworth, or if Scottish, toLists of fossils on display in the Geological Edinburgh. The collection of EconomicMuseum (its current title) are kept at both specimens has been retained at the GM, underKeyworth and the BMCNH), PalaeontologyBM(NH) control, so requests for material andDepartment (requests for information to the information should be addressed to theKeeper), and will be emended as specimens are Curator of the GM. The former Geologicalreturned to Keyworth.Societv collections of British oetrolozicalspecimens has passed to the 6etrology sectionAll enquiries about BGS fossils should beof the Mineralogy Department of the BM(NH)addressed to the Curator, or Manager,and reauests should be made to~the~Keener ~- c--of --Biostratigraphy Research Group, British Mineralogy. This means that both the BritishGeological Survey, Keyworth. Enquiries and foreign material, which went to theconcerning borehole material should beBM(NH) in 1911, is now reunited and curatedaddressed to the Manager, National Geoscience together.C. Howard C. BruntonDepartment of PalaeontologyBritish Museum (Natural History)Cromwell RoadLondon SW7 5BDTypescript received 29 October 1986

Geological Curator, Vo1.4, No.8, 1987 (for 19861, pp.487-491COLLECTIONS, COLLECTORS AND RlUSEUMS OF NOTE, No.51THE FOSSIL COLLECTION OF C.B. SALTERFROM CLIFF QUARRY, COMPTON MARTIN, MENDIP HILLSBY MURRAY MITCHELLBIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTlONClifford Barnett Salter was born in Bristolin 1910, the only child of Henry and DoraSalter. He was educated at Bristol GrammarSchool where his interest in natural scienceswas quickly recognised. In 1926 he wasoffered the opportunity of further education,but his father, who was chief accountant in asubsidiary firm of the Imperial TobaccoCompany, arranged for him to he a traineethere, with security of employment for life -all important during that time of deepdepression. ClifPs interests in thecountryside never waned and years later,after he had changed his job, a move toCompton Martin enabled him to follow manycountry pursuits. Not far from the villagelay Cliff Quarry, a small quarry in theCarboniferous Limest~ne which had producedstone for housebuilding and road making;working had ceased in 1956 and it was whenexploring this quarry that Cliff made thediscovery that enabled him to amass avaluable collection of fossils. His untimelydeath in 1971 prevented him from makingfurther discoveries in this field of geologywhere amateurs have always made (and continueto make) such valuable contributions (Figs. 1-51.HISTORY OF THE COLLECTIONCliff Salter made a notable contribution togeology by amassing a very large collectionof fossils from the Carboniferous Limestoneat Cliff Quarry (NGR ST5415681, ComptonMartin, in the Mendip Hills, Somerset. Thefossils from this quarry have been known fora long time (e.g. Sibly 1906, p.3511, hutCliff Salter's meticulous work resulted inone of the largest collections ofCarboniferous Limestone fossils ever madefrom a single locality.Cliff's interest in geology and fossilcollecting was aroused by finds of ammonitesand other fossils from the Jurassic rocks ofDundry Hill, south of Bristol, and it was ahappy chance that turned his attention to thefossils from Cliff Quarry. He and his wifeEsm'e had bought a seventeenth century cottage(The Long House) in the village of ComptonMartin as a weekend retreat; as a break fromthe toils of conversion work, they would taketheir dogs for walks in the hlendip Hillswhich form the high ground south of thevillage. It was not long before ClifPseagle eye noticed that the limestone of CliffQuarry was richly fossiliferous. Hisinterest was fired by this discovery and, onlooking more closely, he found a bed oflimestone in a state of weathering thatenabled even the smallest and most delicatefossils to be extracted from the rock.Fig.1 Cliff Salter (1910-1911).Photograph taken in 1968.Boxes of this weathered limestone weregathered up and carted back to Bristol. Thedining room of the Salters' house at 25Cotham Road was converted into a workshop andlaboratory, and for a number of years Cliffdevoted every spare moment to breaking downthe limestone blocks and cleaning anddeveloping the fossils that he found. Thesight of Cliff, hunched over his microscopevery early every morning in the large frontwindow of his house, roused the interest andcuriosity of passers by; some were driven toenquire about ClifPs labours, hut most neverappreciated what it was that drove him tosuch toil and effort. While this work was inprogress, the Salters' domestic help used togrumble at the dust Cliff created when he was'scratching at his offals'! He sorted thefossils into different species and storedthem with great care so that he was able tokeep a check on the wide range of forms thathe collected. He developed his owntechniques, modifying instruments such asdental tools, for extracting the fossils -many of them very small - from the rock, andused his considerable engineering skill to

CLIFF QUARRYComPt"nMan,nFig.3 Location of Cliff Quarry,Compton Martin.Fig.2Cliff Quarry. Compton Martin.refurbish an ancient monocular microscope,converting it into a binocular so that hecould clean the delicately ornamented fossilswith patience and care. Esm6 Salter wasworking in the Geology Department of BristolUniversitv at the time. and Cliff and Esm6showed the specimens to Louise and DesmondDonovan, who realised the importance of thecollection but were unable to give muchassistance with identification.When Cliff turned to the PalaeontologicalDepartment of the Geological Survey (then atthe Geological Museum in South Kensington,London) for help, the full significance ofthe collection was immediately realised.Eventually, in 1962, the Survey was extremelyfortunate to receive this unique collectioninto its care.IMPORTANCE OF THE COLLECTIONThe C.B. Salter Collection is important inseveral ways. The numerical size of thecollection, and the great variety of speciespresent, makes it one of the most importantcollections from any Carboniferous Limestonelocality, arid certainly the most valuablefrom the Mendips. Although many of thefossils are small, the fine detail of theornament of the shells is beautifullypreserved and there are a number of rareforms, some of which are the first recordsfrom the Mendip area.The details of the Carboniferous Limestonesection exposed in Cliff Quarry were given byGreen and Welch (1965, p.21) who listed someof the stratigraphically significant coralscollected there. The quarry sequence lies inthe Hotwells Limestone near the top of theCarboniferous Limestone and corresponds inage with rocks exposed at Round Point in theclassic Avon Gorge section at Bristol(Vaughan 1905, p.199). This horizon is oneof the most widespread and fossiliferous ofthe late Brigantian Stage of the BritishDinantian; its distribution was brieflydiscussed by Kellaway (1961, p.64) and Georgeet al. (1976, p.17, fig.41, hut it has neverpreviously yielded such a remarkably diverseassemblage of fossils.Cliff Quarry must represent a specialecological habitat of the warm, shallow seain which the Mendip Carboniferous Limestonewas laid down. It was perhaps a shelteredarea with rich coral thickets, where therewas little or no storm or current disturbanceof the water, so that the smallest and mostfragile shells could he preserved as fossils.Cliff Salter's great interest in the ComptonMartin fossils waned only when he had nearlyexhausted the supply of weathered material(although a limited quantity of this preciousrock has been preserved for future study).The C.B. Salter collection, now housed at theheadquarters of the British Geological Surveyat Keyworth, Nottinghamshire, will remain alasting memorial to the many peaceful butexacting hours that Cliff spent preparing hisspecimens. It is an outstanding contributionto British Geology.CONTENTS OF THE COLLECTIONThe C.B. Salter Collection contains a widerange of invertebrate taxa, but only some ofthe important groups have so far beenproperly studied and described, and it is notyet possible to compile an exhaustive list oftaxa. The following list of initialidentifications does, however, give some ideaof the considerable range of fossils present.Gastropods (Fig.4A and B) are the moatimportant group in the Collection and Formedthe subject of a monographic study by DrRoger L. Batten of the American Museum ofNatural History in New York (see below).Other groups that have been described includethe brachiopod Isogramma (Fig.4C) an8

L. floriformis (Martin)'Michelinia sp. juvenilePalaeosmilia murchisoni Milne Edwards andHaimeSyringopora spp.BRYOZOAFenestella spp.Prismopora balladoolensis (J. Smith)ANNELIDAtube fragmentsBRACHIOPODAFig.4 Fossils from the C.B. SalterCollection; Hotwells Limestone, CliffQuarry, Compton Martin. A, Rhineodermahotwellsensis Batten, BGS Zo 2396,holotype (Batten 1966, p1.2, fig.181,x7. B, Stegocoelia (Hvpergonia) kirkbviDonald. BGS Zo 3115, x8. C, Isogrammae i Brand, BGS 7.0 1525, holotype(Brand 1970, p1.5, fig.101, x2. D,Cvclus martinensis Goldring, BGS GSM102638, holotype (Goldring 1961, p1.51,fig.2), x5.the crustacean Cyclus (Fig.4D), both ofwhich are very rare records for the BritishCarboniferous Limestone.The Collection is registered with thefollowine BGS numbers: GSM 87326,87358-87360, 102638-102647, 103088 and20 967-3748.LIST OF TAXAALGAEKoninckopora sp.FORAMINIFERAMore than 300 solid foraminifera have beendeveloped out of the limestone and includespecimens of Saccamminopsis fusulinaformis(McCoy).PORIFERAAsteractinella sp. (sponge spicules)ANTHOZOAChaetetes sp.Clisiophvllum sp.Dibunophvllum bipartitum bipartitum (McCoy)Hexaphvllia spp.IConinckophvllum spp.Lithostrotion iunceum (Fleming)I, pauciradiale (McCoy)- L. portlocki (Bronn)Lonsdaleia duplicata (Martin)Actinoconchus sp.Avonia sp.Brachvthvris sp.Buxtonia sp.Crurithvris sp.Dielasma sp.Eomarginifera spp.Gigantoproductus sp.Isogramma cf. germanica Paeckel~nann(figured and described by Brandpp.67-83, pls.5-8)Isogramma Brand (figured anddescribed as above)Orbiculoidea sp.orthotetoidsPleuropugnoides sp.Plicatifera sp.sp.Punctosoirifer sp.sp.Reticularia sp.Schizophoria sp.Spirifer spp.Spiriferellina sp.spiriferoids (smooth and reticulate)APAPHINEURAGrvphochiton sp.GASTROPODAThe gastropods of the C.B. Salter Collectionhave been monographed by Batten (19661, wholisted a full synoptic classfication of theCompton Martin fauna (pp.102-105) withdetails of the sample size; the following isa list of the genera and species that wererecorded :Euphemites dorbignii (Portlock)E. konincki (Weir)- E. urii (Fleming)Bellerophon costatus ,I. de C. Sowerby-- B. meeki de KoninckR. sowerbvi d'OrbignyEnightites (Retispira) (de Koninck)- K. (X. kevnianus (de Koninck)Straparollus (Straparollus) dionysii MontfortS. (L.) levigatus (Le'veill6)S. (5.) planorbiformis de KoninckS. (Euomphalus) m? (J. Sowerby)- S. (E.) catilliformis (de Koninck)S. (E.) (J. Sowerby)- S. (E.) amaenus (de Koninck)Rhineoderma hotwellsensis BattenScalitina tabulata (Phillips)Baylea spirolirata Batten

B. m (LGveill6)Mourlonia carinata (J. Sowerby)-- M. striata (J. Sowerby)- M. m de KoninckTropidostropha compta BattenPorcellia =LkveillkEuconospira & (Phillips)Spiroscala intricata BattenLuciellina helicinoides? (McCoy)L. poolva~hensis BattenPeruvispira?-deornata (de Koninck)Hesperiella thomsoni (de Koninck)?H. SD.~osseietina BattenG. portlockiana (de Koninck)Platvzona tornatilis (Phillips)P. cirriformis (J. Sowerby)- P. sp.Tapinotomaria? spinosa BattenShansiella globosa (Thomas)Borestus similis (de Koninck)- B. so.~=~Salterospira tabulata BattenS. plectata BattenLepetopsis retrorsa (Phillips)L. phillipsi de Koninck-Yunnania semicanceilata (de Koninck)y. sp.Microdoma triserrata BattenM. bicrenulata Cde Koninck)M. uniserrata BattenAnomphalus umbilicoliratus BattenTvchonia omaliana (de Koninck)Straparella fallax (de Koninck)S. umhilicata BattenNaticopsis (Naticopsis) consimilis de Koninck- N. (N.) ~lanispira (Phillips)N. (5.1 elongata (Phillips)-N. (N.) Batten- N. (N.) m (Phillips)N. (N.) sigaretiformis de Koninck- N. (Marmolatella) ampliata (Phillips)Turbonitella hiserialis (Phillips)Murchisonia (Donaldospira) pertusa (deKoninck)-M. (Murchisonia) verneuiliaoa? de KoninckCerithioides telescopium HaughtonC. sp.Glvphodeta (Donald)Aclisina striatula (de Koninck)A. sp.Stegoceolia (Hvpergonia) quadricarinata(nfccoy)S. (G.) (Donald)S. (H.) m (Donald)-S. (H.) cf. acuminata (de Koninck)S. (E.) percarinata (Longstaff )S. (H.)? sp.S. (3.1 compacts (Donald)Pithodea amplissima de KoninckPalaeozvglopleura scalarioidea (Phillips)P. benniana (Longstaff)pPalaeostvlus (Stephanozvga)? rugiferus(Phillin)~icroptvc&'constricta (J. Sowerby)M. m LongstaffHemizyga (Hernizvga) clathratula (YoungArmstrong)H. (E.)? ,bilineata BattenpH. (E.)? heliciforma Batten-andCeraunocochlis polyphemoides (de Koninl zk)Ianthinopsis rectilinea (Phillips)- 1. ventricosa (de Koninck)I. conspicua (de Koninck)I. sp.pSoleniscus (J. de C. Sowerby)Meekospira cf. peracuta (Meek andWorthen)Girtvspira fusiformis (de Koninck)Acteonina carbonaria (de Koninck)Donaldina (de Koninck)D. (de Koninck)- D. costatula (Donald)D. quadrata (Donald)-HIVALVIAAviculopecten sp.Conocardium sp.Edmondia sp.Parallelodon sp.Promytilus?Sanguinolites sp.Solenomorpha sp.Streblopteria sp.CEPHALOPODAorthocone nautiloidsVestinautilus sp.Imitoceras sp.goniatite indet.TRILOBITOMORPHAtrilobite glabellae and pygidiaCRUSTACEAm mendipensis Goldring (figured anddescribed by Goldring 1967, pp.311-321,p1.51)OSTRACODACRINOIDEAcolumnals, brachials and cupsECHINOIDEAArchaeocidaris sp. spines and platesparts of jaw apparatusVERTEBRATAfish teethACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMrs Esmg Salter and Professor D.T. Donovangave invaluable assistance in preparing thispaper, which is published with the permissionof the Director, British Geological Survey(NERC).REFERENCESBatten, R.L. 1966. The Lower Carboniferousgastropod fauna from the HotwellsLimestone of Compton Martin, Somerset.Palaeontogr. U. [-.l, 109pp., 10pls.Brand, P.J. 1970. British CarboniferousIsogrammidae. m. geol. Surv. &.33, 67-83, pls. 5-8.George, T.N. et al. 1976. A correlation ofDinantian rocks in the British IsIes.Spec.Rep. aeol. Soc. Lond. 7, 87pp.

Goldring, R. 1967. Cvclus martinensis sp. Sibly, T.F. 1906. The Carboniferousnov. (Crustacea) from the upper - - Vishan of Limestone (Avonian) of the Mendio area.the Mendip Hills, England.9. Jl g'eol. Soc.- ond d. 62, 324-38'0,Palaeontology, 10, 317-321, p1.51.pls.31-35.Green, G.W. and Welch. F.B.A. 1965.Vauehan. A. 1905. The oalaeontoloeical -U .Geology of the country around Wells andsequence in the Carboniferous LimestoneCheddar. U. a. Surv. U.K. 280, X t of the Bristol area. Q. Jl geol. Soc.225 pp., 5 pls. m. 61, 181-307, pls.22-29.Kellaway, G.A. 1967. The GeologicalSurvey Ashton Park Borehole and itsbearing on the geology of the Bristoldistrict. U. geol. Surv. 9 B. 17,49-153.Murray MitchellDepartment of Earth SciencesUniversity of LeedsLeeds LS2 9JTTypescript received 31 October 1985Revised typescript received 21 March 1986JOHN FULLER (1937-1986): AN APPRECIATIONBY TRISTRAM P. BESTERMANOn 11 October 1986 John Fuller died suddenlyand unexpectedly at the age of 49. As asenior member of the curatorial staff of theMineralogy Department of the British Museum(Natural IIistory) he was widely known, likedand respected both in Britain and abroad.After National Service and a couple ofshort-term jobs, John was appointed in 1960,at the age of twenty-three, ScientificAssistant in the BMCNH) MineralogyDepartment, with a background in maths andcivil engineering. Over the next twentyyears he was promoted steadily in theDepartment, until he was appointed SeniorScientific Officer in 1981. In this positionhe was formally designated Collection Managerfor one of the world's greatest mineralcollections.As Collection Manager, it was not so muchscholarship but John's superb organisationalqualities, coupled with a gift of advocacyand an engagingly outgoing personality, thatmade him so effective. These peculiarattributes (not perhaps entirely typical ofcuratorial staff in a national museum) werefostered in m articular bv Peter Emhrev. ..whorecognised John's v:ilue to the De[~.~rtment.Of L.ourse, his rus~~nnnihlity t'ol. locating illlrlevaluating material to adcl to thc collcction1.clier1 first and foremost on :r thorough audencyclov:#r

of his reputation, the Department was givenfirst refusal on important material whichmight otherwise not have come its way at all,or have come on the open market on termsrather less favourable to the BM(NH). So itwould not be over-stating the case to saythat the development of the BM(NH) MineralCollection over the last ten years has beenachieved largely as a result of John Fuller'spersonal qualities and commitment.Since 1981. John was Mineral Advisor to theFund for the Preservation of Technologicaland Scientific Material administered throughthe Science Museum. It was in this role ihatI first met and got to know John Fuller, whenPlymouth decided to go for the BarstowCollection of Devon and Cornwall minerals.From the outset he, played a crucial role bothin evaluating and advising the Museum on thefinancial value of the collection, andsubsequently in supporting our application tothe Science Museum. Although scrupulouslyobjective, this was a collection after hisown heart - rare, quality material from hisfavourite stamping grounds in thesouth-west. Indeed, he had been working withPeter Embrey on photographic material for abook entitled Minerals of Cornwall and Devonat the time of his death.His scientific publications include, withPeter Embrey in 1980 A Manual of new mineralnames 1892-1918 (BMCNH) and Oxford UniversityPress). John was also Editorial Consultantfor the Journal of the Russell Society since1984.I had an opportunity to observe at first handJohn Fuller's eye for material that would addscientificallv to the De~artment'scollections. My father-in-law, a retiredCornish farmer, had a smail, qualitativelyunremarkable but well documented collecGonof minerals from Cornish mine dumps whichincluded material collected on trips with SirArthur Russell after the last War. Thissmall collection was acquired gratefully byJohn Fuller for the Department because hesoon realised that it provided locality datamissing from a number of Sir Arthur'sspecimens in the BMCNH). A nice moral therefor all of us charged with the care anddevelopment of a geological collection.John was a man with a kind of physicalstature that resulted in his not infrequentlybeing mistaken for a policeman - I was withhim on one such occasion. And it was alltaken in good part as yet another example oflife's ironies which evidentlv a~~ealed toJohn's well developed but gentie sense of theludicrous. Although strongly gregarious bynature, John Fuller was also a-reticent and^rather private man; he leaves no immediatefamily.As a colleague and friend, and rovingambassador for the BM(NH) MineralogyDepartment, John Fuller will be deeply missedthroughout the mineralogical community in theUK and overseas. The sense of loss is bothpersonal and professional. It is a tributeto his achievement that he has left a voidwhich it will be very hard indeed for theBMCNH) to fill after a quarter of century ofhis service.Tristram P. BestermanPlymouth City PAuseums and Art GalleryDrake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AJTypescript received 17 February 1981Stellar's sea cows were hunted to extinction in the mid-1700s. in the cold waters of the Berins Sea.UThese placid mammals were a rich source of meat and oil. From the new permanent exhibition at theBM(NH), 'Discovering Mammals'.

Geological Curator, Vo1.4, No.8, 1987 (for 1986), pp.493-501COLLECTIONS. COLLECTORS AND hlUSEUMS OF NOTE, N0.52GEOLOGICAL COLLECTING AND A GEOLOGICAL CAREER:DANIEL JONES (1836-1918)WITH NOTES ON OTHER MIDLANDS COLLECTIONSFROM M E JONES ARCHIVEBY HUGH S. TORRENSINTRODUCTIONDaniel Jones is remembered today as anauthority on the geology of the Shropshirecoalfields, having produced a series ofpapers on the subject between 1871 and 1898in the Geological Magazine and the variousTransactions of the Caradoc Field Club,Manchester Geological Society, Severn ValleyField Club and the Federated Institute ofMining Engineers. Many are listed in therelevant catalogues of scientific papers(Royal Society 1879, p.33; 1918, p.134;Whitaker and Watts 1889). But as always withsuch catalogues they neglect importantscientific papers published in the miningliterature. Jones's work is no exception andhis papers read to the South MidlandInstitute of Mining, Civil and MechanicalEngineers (Jones 1870-1871, 1872) are notlisted.In about 1866 Jones was appointed AssistantCommissioner under the 'Royal Coal Commissionappointed to inquire into the several mattersrelating to Coal in the United Kingdom' (Mate1906, p.44; Penn 1907, p.193; Cantrill 1920- who wrongly says 1869). It was thisappointment that stimulated the above seriesof publications. There is, however, a littleuncertainty about the exact date of his beingcommissioned. David Jones's ownautobiographical notes, written in old age,again gave the date as 1866 (ShropshireRewrd Office, Shrewsbury (hereafter SRO)178115122), the year the commission wasissued (Report 1871).Rut a brief article onJones's career (SRO 178115153) - perhaps byStephen Lawrence of Seaford, Sussex - gave1867 (Ruth Bagley pers. comm.).DANIEL JONES'S GEOLOGICAL EDUCATIONOf particular interest is how Daniel Jonesbecame interested in geology. New light hasbeen thrown on this subject by a recentlydiscovered 'diary' of Jones covering thedecade 1850-1860 (item 248 in Catalogue of.. .... Books (etc) concerned with geology no.1offered for sale by Martin Simpson, Ventnor,Isle of Wight, 1985). This has now beenpurchased by the Shropshire Record Office,where it joins a series of other records (SRO1781) from the same Jones family, who werelanded gentry of Kilsall and Shackerley Hallsnear Donington in Shropshire (see Burke 1937,p.1609 sub Jones Mitton). This existingdeposit includes a series of Daniel Jones'sown journals from 1852 to 1866 (SRO 1781/5/6- 13) as well as a manuscript autobiographyFig.1. A photograph of Daniel Jones takenat about the turn of the century (fromPenn 1907).(178115118 - 24), only commenced as heentered his 70th year in May 1905 and mainlycompleted by 1912, but containing entries atthe very end from 1916-1917.From these and the new 'diary' or notebook weare able to see how important Daniel Jones'sown geological collecting was in hisgeological upbringing and how it was possiblefor a member of the Victorian landed gentry -when faced with a financial disaster - to geta commission as a geologist.Jones was born on 8 May 1836, not in SouthStaffordshire as stated by Cantrill (1920).but at Hartlebury, Worcestershire accordingto Jones's own autobiographical account (SRO1781/5/18 : 1). Cantrill's error can beforgiven as Jones himself records (SRO178115120) that he too was completelymisinformed about the place of his own birthuntil about his twenty-first year when thetruth was disclosed!

Jones's grandfather George (1781-18571, whocame from Broseley in Shropshire (Vaughan1883, pp.43-49), had been a successful ironmaster since at least 1825 when he became aCO-partner in the Chillington Coal and IronCompany in South Staffordshire (SRO17811512). He took out a number ofsignificant iron-making patents (SRO17811513). With his son John (1805-1882) -Daniel's father (see Vaughan 1883. pp.81-82)- the family's involvement in ironworks andcollieries then spread to South Wales(Cantrill 1920) where they owned the BlainaIron Works in Monmouthshire. They alsogreatly expanded operations in SouthStaffordshire and by the time Daniel becameinvolved in the management of the family'scollieries and iron works in 1853 they wereinvolved both at Spring Vale, west ofBilston, Staffordshire, where they ownedblast and puddling furnaces (Hunt 1853,pp.343-346; Gale 1979, pp.10, 90) and atBirch Hills, a colliery and iron workscomplex with three blast furnaces, north westof Walsall (Hunt 1853, pp.197, 343-3461.[Famay portraits of George Jones (1781-1851)and his wife, John Jones (1805-18821, and ofDaniel Jones himself are owned by Daniel'sonly surviving grand-daughter Mrs G.Lacy-IIulbert, Shackerley, Lavant, Chichester,West Sussex P018 ODA; the unsigned oilpainting of Daniel measures 36 X 26 ins andshows him as a young man.]This industrial activity is reflected in thenewly discovered Jones 'diary'. The volumehas been lettered by a binder on its spine'D. Jones diary vo1.2', but it is much betterreferred to as a Notebook (and will be sohereafter). It carries the date 5 April 1851at the beginning and was clearly usedinitially for some early mathematicalexercises, one of which (p.43) was signed anddated by Jones on 4 April 1851. The Notebookalso refers to the family's Spring Vale works(p.100) and to those at Birch Hills (p.22).Some unnumbered pages at the beginning of theNotebook carry analyses of many varieties ofcoal from South Wales.Daniel's autobiography reveals that chemistrywas an early interest and that during theholidavs of 1847-1848 from the school heattended for one year at Totteridge, nearWhetstone, in Middlesex, he sometilnes went tothe family's Bilston ironworks (SKO178115119). Here in Bilston he made theacquaintance of a chemist called White and alocal physician, Dr Cooper, who had acollection of fossils. This last, Danielreported, 'set up in my mind an intenseferment'.Daniel seems to have been in a considerableferment about subjects other than geology inhis school days! In 1848, at the age oftwelve, he moved to the Rev. E.H. Day'sschool at Cleveland House near Brixton, wherehe learnt painting and mechanical drawing.Furthermore 'a dear old man named Johnsonfrom Guy's Hospital [in London1 lectured tous sometimes, a series on Geology, Chemistryor Botany'; Daniel recorded that he 'wasabout the only boy who took notes of theselectures' (SRO 118115119). These lectureswere given by Charles Johnson (1791-1880),Lecturer at Guy's from 1830 to 1873 and atthe hledical Botanical Society in London(Desmond 1917, p.346). Daniel was clearlyinspired by them, noting later that'Johnson's lectures certainly laid thefoundation of my interest in NaturalScience. Geology and Chemistry were myfavourite studies'.In 1851 - when the Notebook was started -Daniel was expelled from his London schoolfor misconduct and obstinacy! Geologythereafter had to be self-taught throughcollecting fossils and reading geologicalbooks. He spent muoh time in breakingironstone nodules from the family works insearch of ferns and fossils, labelling andarranging the specimens and studying with theaid of G.F. Richardson's book Geolopv forbeginners.In 1851, after urgent family consultationsinvolving his irate father, it was agreedthat he be sent to school in Berlin under thecare of Professor Zumpt (a family friend) ofthe Friederich Wilhelms Gymnasium. Berlingave particular opportunities for the studyof chemistrv 'which would be useful to anironmaster'. Daniel stlldie(l chemistry at thcLnhorntory of the (;crverhc LTcchnicllllnstil~ltc under I(nrl Friedrich l

purchases in Monmouthshire. He borrowedmoney to support his iron works there and, astime and interest advanced, his father's debtto the bankers became nearly £5~0,000. OnBlack Friday (11 May 1866) the widespreadfinancial collapse of the London banks(Annual Register 1866, pp.183-185) caught upwith the Jones family. Overend, Gurney andCo. of London stopped payment, with financialinvolvements of £19 million! No singlebankruptcy had ever caused so great a shockto credit, John Jones was forced to declarehimself bankruot and his affairs were placedin the hands o? the Court of Chancery (SRO178115122, 11.78).Daniel Jones too suddenly became unemployedbut was lucky enough to be soon appointed anassistant commissioner on the Royal CoalCommission for the whole county ofShropshire, where his home was, at a wage of51- an hour plus travelling expenses (SRO1781/5/22. p.80). But how was it possiblefor a member of the English Landed Gentry, ofan ironmaster's family, to suddenly get paidemployment as a geologist? To answer this weneed to uncover more of Daniel's earlygeological activities. Both the newNotebook, whose geological contents date from1856 to 1860, and other material in the Jonesfamilv archive shed valuable lieht on howDaniel taught himself geology, Bfter theintroduction Charles Johnson's lectures inLondon had provided to the subject.These same sources also reveal how importantDaniel Jones's own geological collection andits classification was to his geologicaleducation. It was because of this largelyself-generated education that Daniel was ableto switch from the metallurgical activities,for which his family background and histraining in Germany had equipped him, to thegeological activities of the Coal Commission.DANIEL JONES'S ASSOCIATION WITHR.S. COOPERWe have already noted Daniel's visits, whilea schoolboy, to a fossil collector at Bilstoncalled Dr Cooper.Richard Spooner Cooper (fl.1829 - fl.1860)had trained in London as a surgeonapothecaryand published 'On the stricture ofthe nervous system' (Cooper 1829). He gainedhis licentiateship of the Society ofApothecaries of London (LSA) on 25 February1830 and became a member of the Royal Collegeof Surgeons of England (MRCS) on 14 May1830. In the same vear he moved to 16 HiehStreet, Bilston in Staffordshire, becoiningmedical officer of the Western District ofthe Bilston and Wolverhampton Union andmedical officer of the BilstonCommissioners. [He is not to be confusedwith another Richard Cooper (1802-1872) -also LSA and MRCS - who was in practise inLeek, Staffordshire (Staffordshire Advertiser29 June 1872, pp.4-5; Miller 1891, p.1481.1Cooper married Ann Peace at St. Peter's,Wolverhampton on 23 February 1832. Hisprospects must have seemed good but wererudely shattered by the terrible choleraepidemic which struck Bilston in August andSeptember of that same year (Leigh 1833).He was a surgeon on the hastily appointedLocal Board of Health set up to contain theoutbreak, which caused 742 deaths (1 in 20 ofthe population).He has been described as 'a cleverantiquarian collector and critic' (Lawley1890, p.34). His fossil collection was welladvanced by 1842 when 'Mr Cooper of Bilston'was noted as one of the original team who hadlent their collections for the fine Museumset up in Dudley for the first GeneralMeeting of the Dudley and Midland GeologicalSociety on 17 January 1842 (Murchison 1842,p.31). There is much uncertainty about thelongevity of botn the Society and its Museum(Cutler 1981, p.4). Cooper's brother-in-lawFrancis Paul Palmer recorded in 1845 thenecessity of visiting 'the splendidgeological museum in the New Street ofDudley' and that 'the great fossil fishItherel, the Megalicthys Hibberti is from thecollection of my excellent and learnedkinsman Richard Cooper Esq. of Bilston'(Palmer and Crowquill 1846, p.58). Murchisonhad also described this fish at the openingof the Museum irl 1842 as 'perhaps the finestwhich has ever Deen found' (Murchison 1842,p.30).Palmer and Crowquill (1846, p.26) alsorecorded the 'innumerable fossils,electrotypes [casts] and local curiosities'in the 'antiquarian snuggery' of Cooper'sBilston home. This became a powerful magnetfor tte young schoolboy Daniel Jones who, inhis journal for 25 October 1855, describesanother visit as follows: 'This morning Iwent to see Dr Cooper of Bilston. He has amost splendid collection of fossils and hasoffered them to me for E30 - case into thebargain. I am sure they are cheap at £100.I do not know whether I shall be able to buyit. It is rich in Ammonites. Belemnites,Encrinital heads and steams [stems]. Alsosome fossil nautili. His vegetable remainsfrom the Carboniferous formation is veryfine. He has a most beautiful fish, one ofthe finest specimens in Europe from theSilurian L'Stone of Dudley. He offered it tothe British Museum for E50 and it has rousedthe Geological fire still more' (SRO17811518, p.468). The fish must again be theMeEalicthvs, allowing a mistakenidentification of its horizon by the nineteenyear old youth. This reference suggests toothat the specimen had been returned to Cooperafter the disbandment of the Dudley Museumdisplay.Daniel's father, however, would not providethe money, so Daniel next day wrote to Cooperoffering him E25 for the collection on hisown account. Daniel was to have bought a newscarlet coat and top boots, which his journalrecords would have cost £10 with the expenseof going to London, but he decided to deferthe purchase and added 'l shall hold hard myoutgoings until I have paid this £25. Thereis a satisfaction in doing this. Thecollection is quite of county notoriety' (SRO11811518, pp.469-470).

Immediately after this exchange Daniel wenton holiday to Scarborough on the Yorkshirecoast, of which a separate journal survives(SRO 1781/5/9). This journal records hisseveral fossil hunting expeditions and thatthe man he went to for advice was a localworking-class dealer in fossils PeterCullen. [Cullen was the Yorkshire coastdealer commissioned by John Phillips(1800-1874), before 1867, to collect Liassicbelemnites and specifically to explore theupper part of the Lower Lias at Robin Hood'sBay (Phillips 1867, pp.57, 86). Almostcertainly, Cullen was also the working mancalled 'Irish Peter' mentioned by Williamson(1896, p.55) as one of the two working-classfossil dealers then in Scarborough and whowere largely instrumental in helping JohnLeckenby (1814-1877) form his fine Yorkshirefossil collection (Cleevely 1983, p.181). 1One late October afternoon Daniel walked tothe Mews near the Museum where Peter had hisfossil stall: 'He was out but in the courseof half an hour I saw Peter's form bent withthe might of fossils he bore. He [had]collected from the lower beds of the Oolite.Some of these I bought . . . . He sometime agofound an ichtyosaur from the Lias. ThevertebraLe1 he has in large quantities'.On 1 November his Scarborough journal notes,'All the go with the ladies just now is theanticipated Free Trade Hall Ball. Katewishes Ruth and myself to come but I amopposed to it. The fact is if I am to buyCooper's geological collection 1 cannotafford to go to any expense for balldressing. I bought some [more] fossils fromPeter Cullen for 2s/8dt (SRO 17811519). On 6November he also visited the privategeological and conchological museum of MrWilliam Bean I1 (1787-1866) (see McMillan andGreenwood 1972. p.155) but Bean had been illand could not then show him his finecollection, so an arrangement was made forsome future visit.On his return to Shropshire, Daniel noted ofhis Scarborough break, 'during this visit Ihave acquired a thirst greater than beforeafter Geological Information. The Museum ofScarboro' [Philosophical Society opened 18291and the private geological collection of MrWm. Bean are oroductions of much amusement tothose who delight in matters of NaturalScience' (SRO 1781/5/8, p.472).At last by November 1856 Daniel Jones hadcollected the purchase price of Cooper'scollection together and was able to concludethe purchase of it, as the new Notebookrecords. Here Jones noted that Cooper 'had afriendly feeling towards me and offered theentire collection to me for £30. I could notprevail on my father to purchase it for me soI offered him £25 on my own account which heaccepted. To provide funds C deferredpurchasing new lop boots and a pink huntingcoat which I had previously contemplatedbuying'. The fossils were removed to RuckleyGrange in the parish of Tong, two miles eastof Shifnall in Shropshire 'in a waggonwithout sustaining any injury' (page headed'History of the Collection in re Cooper'at the end of the notebook). Jones describedin his autobiographical notes that he livedhere from 1852 on his entry into the irontrade (SRO 1781/5/19, pp.39-40).Letters about the transaction are transcribedinto the Notebook (pp.8-11) and copies wereplaced in the cabinet itself and show thatCooper was allowed to remove certain fossilsfrom the collection before Jones collectedit. Whether he did, and what might have beenremoved, is unknown. In one of Jones'sletters to Cooper he noted 'I suppose youwill still feel interested with geologicalspecimens [after the departure of thecollection to Ruckley and1 if in my rambles Ishould find any of peculiar interest I willbe careful to send you a specimen'.THE LATER HISTORY OF THE JONES-COOPERCOLLECTIONDaniel's interest in palaeontology wasclearly stimulated by the purchase of theCoooer collection. On 17 March 1857. bv then~~~aged twenty, his Notebook records that hewrote to Henry Beckett FGS (died 1876), themining engineer and fossil collector based inWolverhampton (Warwick 1967, p.24; Cleevely1983, p.52). about joining thePalaeontographical Society (of which Beckettwas then Local Secretary for the area).Jones was elected a Fellow of the GeologicalSociety of London in 1869.Evidence also survives in the Notebook of theways in which Jones added to the Coopercolledion. His younger brother HenryFrancis John Jones - later Vaughan (1841-1930) (Burke 1952, p.2592; Auden 1931) - wasthen at school in Diss, Norfolk before hismatriculation at Oxford University in 1859,from where he graduated BA in 1863 (Foster1888, p.764). For Daniel's collection Henryprovided fossils from the Suffolk Crag(Notebook, p.28) which had come from thecabinet of Rev. Greville John Chester (bornc.18311, a cousin of William 3rd Baron Bagot(1811-1887) (Burke 1891, p.77); thesespecimens all bore Chester's own distinctivelabels on wooden boards, which may allow thespecimens to be recognised, if the collectionsurvives. In March 1858 the Jones collectionwas further extended by George Holyoake(1801-1879) who had family connections withthe Jones's parish of Donington, Shropshire(Vaughan 1883, p.89). Holyoake was thenserving in the Staffordshire Militia and gaveDaniel all the shells, minerals and fossilswhich he had collected from Corfu whilestationed there (Notebook, p.96). DanielJones's collection was also exhibited inabout 1858 at a local exhibition in Bilston(Notebook, p.101) which was cnthusiasticailynoled in the \Volvcrliu~nyton Chronicle. Ijythen the collection ir~cluderl material fromthe Paris Basin as well.Transcribed letters in the Notebook betweenthe Jones brothers show too that Daniel wasalso busy growing relevant examples of livingplants in the family gardens at ShackerleyHall, with the help of the estate's gardenerMr Thomas Shortland. The purpose was tocompare these with the Carboniferous fossilplants being uncovered in the Jones familycollieries in Staffordshire.

Other insights into Daniel's geologicalactivities are given in the Notebook,including: a long section of notes on thefirst chapter of Genesis (pp.49 seq);remarks on the plain at Ormskirk andSouthport; a letter about a living frogfound in a clay bed at Benthall, Shropshirein about April 1857; and observations on the'Trap' of Powkhill near Walsall. Among booksnoted by Jones as having proved useful in hisearly geological studies, apart from G.F.Richardson's GeoloRy for Beginners, was HughMiller's Testimony of G Rocks. One of themost intriguing notes is of 29 October 1858(NotebooK, pp.100-101) which shows thatDaniel Jones, aged twenty-two, had lecturedon geology to the work force of the familyironworks at Spring Vale - reminding us ofthe importance of the spoken word indisseminating information in Victorian times.After his father's death in 1882 Daniel movedto Kilsall Hall at Shifnal in Shropshire(illustrated by Mate 1906. p.199). Here theJones-Cooper collection must have followedhim. In later life (1905) Daniel recordedthat it was then 'contained in a cabinet ofabout 50 drawers and is illustrative of mostgeological formations' (SRO 1781/5/19,pp.11-12). Its fate is uncertain, but itseems highly likely that the collectionpassed to the Geological Museum of BirminghamUniversity: for in 1906 Daniel Jones wasmade a Life Governor of the University (SRO1781/5/22, p.91) and, at about the same time,he handed over his large collection ofgeological sections, reports and papers tothe University. His autobiography, writtenat that time, records 'there the collectionof Fossils might be helpful for the Museumand so become useful to others rather than tolie idle'. Whether the collection reachedthe Museum needs investigation, but this maybe difficult as the accession books are notvery 'helpful' between 1900 and 1906, afterwhich the entries cease until after the FirstWorld War (Strachan 1979, p.309). TheJones-Cooper collection could well havearrived unrecorded during this period.Richard Spooner Cooper appears in the recordsof the Royal College of Surgeons of London asstill at 16 High Street, Bilston, until1860. He had taken a partner from 1857 to1859. He is still listed in the Calendarfrom 1861 to 1872 but no address is given.His last entry was in 1872 (which may meanonly that the College had by then finallylost contact). The deaths of three RichardCoopers are recorded in the Dudley districtalone between 1864-1871, and the date ofRichard Spooner Cooper's death is unknown.The value of the Jones-Cooper collection maynot have been high in scientific terms butits value in educational terms is clear fromDaniel Jones's reminiscence (SRO 1781/ 5/22,p.82) about how he became a geologist afterthe financial crisis his family faced in1866: 'I little thought that my boyishpastime of collecting fossils and studyinggeology would serve me such a good turn inafter life as to become a service ofconsiderable emolument. Up to the presenttime (1905) I have received in fees connectedwith geological work not less than £1,200'.WILLIAM STOWB AND THE BUCI

attend to at once. I purpose sending themoff as widely as I can, and, in the meantimeallow me to say that there are specimens tobe seen in the Geological Museum inJermyn-street, whither I sent them a weekago. Yours truly, W. STOWE Buckingham,Jan 8'.In a benevolent attempt to help Stowe aletter under the name Conchos then appearednoting that fossils were also appearing ingreat numbers in the new sewerage excavationsin London! (Times 10 January 1857, p.10co1.a):'Sir, - Perhaps the fossil collectors who haveoverwhelined your Buckingham correspondent. W.Stowe, whose letter appears in your columnsof to-day, may feel interested in the factthat, in excavating for the sewers on the newLondon road now forming to shorten thedistance from central Essex and theLea-bridge-road to the metropolis, theworkmen have within the last few days, at adepth of about 20 feet, dug into a bed ofseasand, containing numerous shells, bothnnivalves and bivalves of supposed extinctspecies, com~ningled with what appears to hedrift wood in large pieces, now quite black,thus evidencing that at some period of ourworld's history the seashore reached to UpperClapton. For those curious in the matter Imay add that the site of this discovery isnot far from where Clapton-gate formerlystood - for that barbarian harrier, with itsante-diluvian gatehouse, is, if notfossilized, at least .disintegrated, and now,like the inhabitants of the said uni and bivalves, among the "things that were, but arenot" - and on the new line of road thusthrown open opposite its site, proceedingwest and south-west towards London. Thedistance is about two and a-half or threemiles from the Royal Exchange. I am, Sir,your obedient servant, CONCHOSLondon, Jan. 9'.Fig.2. Specimens from Tingewick whichappeared in the Illustrated London News(24 January 1857, vo1.30, pp.67-68).opinion about the origin of these apparentlyconcretionary objects as 'marine vegetables,fungi, algae and fuci'. This was recorded bythe Oxford Journal, their report ending: 'weare authorised to say that Mr Stowe wouldsend specimens to any institution orindividual who takes an interest in suchmatters on their paying the zarriage byail. Unfortunately the Times newspaperpicked up and reprinted the notice (G January1857, p.12, col.1); the result was outlinedby Stowe himself two days later in a letterto the Times (9 January 1857, p.10, co1.f):Sir, - The transference of a paragraph aboutfossils from a local paper into yourwide-world publication has overwhelmed mewith applications for them, having had about70 in 24 hours, which it is impossible toCooper, when sending these letters to Jones,offered to obtain specimens of the Tingewickfossils from his fellow surgeon for Jones who'not wishing to trouble [Cooper], Ithankfully declined'. It would be ofinterest to know if readers can shed light onthe material generated at Tingewick and bythe Upper Clapton (North London) sewers. Theinterest in the Tingewick discovery was suchthat an article also appeared in theIllustrated London News (30, pp.67-G8 of 24January 18571, with illustrations of some ofthe specimens (reproduced here as Fig.2). Bythis date Stowe had been deluged with 170letters asking for specimens but he was'unable to go on satisfying the claimants asthe men have ceased to dig for clay for theseason'! The sheer volume of the responsegives a clear indication of the greatpopularity of fossil collecting 130 years ago.On 22 June 1860 Stowe died in Buckingham atthe age of G9 (Times 21 June 1860, p.1). Thefate of his personal, and perhapsconsiderable, fossil collection isunrecorded. When Owen (1842, p.101)described Cetiosaurus he noted that the fewlarge caudal vertebrae and other bones of C.

Fig.3. Architect's final design for the BirminghamIllustrated London m (~01.27, pp.603-604).and Midland Institute, as it appeared in theOwen which Stowe had discovered in1834 were still then in Dr Buckland's Museumat Oxford. But by the time of John Phillip'sstudy of Cetiosaurus (1871, pp.245-294) theauthor reported that the material could notthen he identified at Oxford; he noted,however, that the form of the large caudalvertebra was preserved to science in the formof an admirable cast given to the Museum byStowe's son Alfred (c.1834-1915). Thisimplies that William Stowe's fossilcollection had remained in the family. Anyfurther information would he welcomed.TIlE FATE OF THE BIRMINGHAMPHILOSOPHICAL INSTITUTION COLLECTIONA final observation in the Notebook, whilenot related to the Jones collection, shedswelcome light on the mystery surrounding thefate of the major geological museum onceattached to the Philosophical Institution inCannon Street, Birmingham. This had grownfrom the Birmingham Philosophical Society(founded in 1800) and had long served as themajor repository for geological material fromthe Birmingham region before courses ingeology started at Mason College in 1881. Itincluded cited material (Page 1979, p.359)and was flourishing when Hugh Miller(1802-1856) visited the museum in 1845. Hefound it beautifully kept and scientificallyarranged and Miller was delighted to discoverthat admission was free (Miller 1857,pp.207-208). The building was illustrated byWaterhouse (1954, p1.8).But the Institution soon started to sufferfrom financial problems, like many suchorganisations in the later 1840s.Birmingham's were particularly acute and in1847 the Institution had to dismiss JamesBuckman (1814-1884), its paid curator(Langford 1873, p.134). Worse was to follow,for in November 1849 (ironically, just afterthe visit by the British Association for theAdvancement of Science) it was forced toclose for lack of support. But the fate ofthe Geological and Mineralogical Museum hasalwavs remained a mvsterv. A sale of it bvauction was announced in November 1852(m Birmingham Gazette 19 November. 1852)but this was oostooned in the followine monthChalmers-Hunt (1976, p.93) suggested that thesale may have been abandoned and the Museumpresented to the Queens College, Birmingham.Queens College had originated in a smallmedical school which, attracting funds, wasgranted a charter in 1843 and a gothicbuilding erected in Paradise Street,Birmingham - which included a museum (Gill1952, pp.396-399 and plate). The Collegecould then have received the collections ofthe Philosophical Institution Museum in 1852.But a newspaper cutting pasted in the JonesNotebook (p.98) from the Midland Countiesnewspaper reads as follows:'A valuable collection of recent Shells hasjust been presented to the Midland Instituteby Mrs. Taylor, late of Moseley Hall. Itincludes a large proportion of the speciesthat are found on our own coast, besides manyfine specimens of foreign shells, aU inexcellent condition. This and the othercontributions lately ~eceived willconsiderably enrich the existing collection,

~~~~~~~which constituted the Museum of the oldPhilosophical Institution, and has beentransferred to the Midland Institute.'Langford (1873, p.272) dated the Taylordonation as April 1858. The notice at lastdemonstrates conclusively that the Museumcollections of the former PhilosophicalInstitution 1800-1849 were not sold atauction in 1852 but were passed instead tothe Midland Institute.The Birmingham and Midland Institute idea wasfirst mooted in 1849 after the closure of thePhilosophical Institution (Langford 1873).At a public meeting early in 1853 the projectwas properly launched (Langford 1873; Gill1952, pp.394-396; Waterhouse 1954) withplans for a museum of geology, manufacturesand models of machinery. The foundationstone was laid in November 1855(Illustrated London News, 27, pp.603-604).The institution was to promote science andart among the middle and working classes.The teaching of geology 'as especiallybearing upon the industrial pursuits of themidland district' was to be particularlyencouraged and a geological museum was tosupport this. 4n engraving of thearchitect's final design is shown here fromthe same source (Fig.3); the building (nowdemolished) as finally built was illustratedby Waterhouse (1954, ~1.1).The building was opened in 1857 and clearly,from the above notice, the old collections ofthe Philosophical Institution were moved insoon afterwards and before April 1858. TheMuseum opened on 9 January 1860, when it waSreported to have had 'a good geologicalcollection and specimens of natural historywhich have been classified by ProfessorMorris and others' (Langford 1873, p.275).John Morris (1810-1886) had been appointed tothe chair of Mineralogy and Geology atUniversity College, London in 1855 (Topley1886). His obituarist recorded that he wasindecisive, but there seems nothing of thissort in his curatorial methods with the oldBirmingham Philosophical Institutiongeological collections, which had beenwithout a salaried curator since 1847! C.J.Woodward (died 1932). ., Morris's assistant.~recalled 'as in all museums duplicate and'inferior specimens had accumulated, and thisrubbish was a great trouble to ProfessorMorris as he scarcely liked to throw it awayfor fear of incurring the displeasure of theCommittee, and it was out of the question tobestow time and attention to such inferiorspecimens. However he determined to get ridof it, so we carried basket after basket ofthe 'stuff' to the Newsroom stairs and tippedtheir contents on to the ground below'(Waterhouse 1954, pp.41-42)!The only problem, as ever it seems withgeological material, was the subsequenttreatment of these collections. When theSmallbrook Ringway was being built as part ofpost Second World War road improvements theInstitute building with the collections wasdemolished. The collection was apparently'just thrown out' and a number of good butpoorly labelled specimens, later found toinclude one figured specimen, were rescued byDr G.R. Coope who passed them to BirminghamUniversity's Geological Museum (Strachan1979, p.317). The figured specimen was ofthe crustacean described by Salter (1861,p.531, fig.7) as Anthrapalaemon dubius(Prestwich). It was one of two specimens,of which electrotype casts had been given tothe Geological Society of London when theirdiscoverer William Ick FGS briefly firstdescribed them (Ick 1845, p.199). It was oneof these which Salter had illustrated. DrWilliam Ick (1800-1844; see Bagnell 1891,p.499) was the first curator of the oldPhilosophical Institution and his twooriginal specimens had clearly passed intoits Museum on his death.POSTSCRIPTIt is hoped these notes will make researchersaware of the material preserved amongst theJones of Shackerley archive at the ShropshireRecord Office. If they also generate moreinformation on the fates of the Cooper-Jones,Stowe, and Midland Institute collections,such would be a valuable additional bonus.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSGrateful thanks are due to Marian Halford -county archivist - and Ruth Bagley (who firstbrought the Jones archive to my attention)for their help with material in their care.Miss J.M. Aspden of the Royal College ofSurgeons, London provided much data on thesurgeons Cooper and Stowe. Material from theJones archive is quoted by kind permission ofthe Shropshire County Archivist.REFERENCESAuden, J.E. 1931. Obituarv of Henrv F.J.~aughan. Trans. ~hrois. archaeol. p&.- Hist. &. 46, 1-2.Bagnell, J.E. 1891. Flora of Warwickshire.Gurney and Jackson, London.Buckland, W. 1835. Notice of a newlydiscovered gigantic reptile. Proc. geol.Soc. Lond. 2(40). 190.Burke, B. 1891. Dictionary of the Peerage- and Baronetage (53rd edition). Barrison,T.onrlon. - . --.. 1937. Burke's Landed Gentrv(15th edition). Shaw. London.Burke, J. and Burke. B. 1952. Ibid.(17th edition). Burke's Peerage, London.Cantrill, T.C. 1920. Obituary notice ofDaniel Jones. Q. 31 geol. Soc. Lond. 75.. .IXxl.Chalmers-Hunt, J .M. 1976. Natural historyauctions 1700-1972. Sotheby ParkeBernet, London.Cleevely, R.J. 1983. palaeontologicalcollections. British Museum (NaturalHistory) and Mansell, London.Cooper, R.S. 1829. On the stricture of thenervous system. Lond. med. surg. J.Cutler, A. 1981. A short history of theDudley and Midland Geological Societies.Black Countrv Geologist, 1, 1-21.Delair, J.B. and Sarjeant, W.A.S. 1975.The earliest discoveries of dinosaurs.Isis, 66, 5-25.

-----Desmond, R. 1977. Dictionary of British andIrish botanists horticulturalists.Taylor and Francis, London.Foster, J. 1888. Oxonienses 1715--. 1886. vo1.2. Parker. Oxford.Gale. W.K.V. 1979. The Black Countrv ironindustrv. Metals Society, London.Gill, C. 1952. History of Birmingham,vol.1. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Hunt, R. 1853. Note on coal raised andiron made at present (Dec. 1852) in SouthStaffordshire. Rec. Sch. Mines, 1,342-346.Ick, W. 1845. On some crustaceous remainsin Carboniferous rocks. Q-. Jl geol. Soc.Lond. 1, 199.Jones, D. 1870-1871. The Sulphur Springsof Codsall Wood and Chillington. m.S. Midland Inst. min. civil mech. m.--p3, 16-25, 59-70.1872. The correlation of theCoalbrookdale and South Staffordshire-- Coal Fields. Steen and Blacket,Wolverhampton.1895. On the iron industry ofSouth Staffordshire. S. Iron Steel Inst.48. , 8-19. -~Langford, J.A. 1873. Modern Birmingham-- and its institutions, vol.1. Osborne,Birminshnm. -- ~ ~~---W - - - ~ - ~ ~ ~Lawley G.T. 1890. The bibliography ofWolverhampton. Price and Beebee, Bilston.Leigh, W. 1833. An authentic narrative of. . . . the awful visitation that town[Bilstonl bv cholera. Parke,Wnlvnrhnmntnn..~ .. ~~Mate, W. 1906. Mate's County Series.Shropshire historical, descriptive,biographical. Mate, Bournemouth.McMiUan. N.F. and Greenwood. E.F. 1972.~he~eans of scarborough; a family ofnaturalists. J. Soc. Biblphv nat. Hist.6, 152-161.Miller, H. 1857. First impressions ofEngland and its people. Constable,Edinburgh.Miller, M.H. 1891. Olde Leeke. TimesOffice, Leek.Murchison, R.I. 1842. The InauguralAddress ... Dudlev and Midland Geologicalm. Taylor, London.Owen, R. 1842. Report on British fossilreptiles, Part 11. Rep. Br. Ass. AdvmtSci.11 (Plymouth 1841). 60-204.~age7B. 1979. Donations to the Shropshireand North Wales Natural History Society,1835-1884. Newsl. =l. Curators Grp. 2,357-368.ThePalmer, F.P. and Crowquill. A. 1846.wanderings of pen and pencil. How,T,nndnn. --.. --..Penn, C. 1907. Staffordshire and Shropshire-- at the opening of the twentieth centurywith contemporarv biographies (edited byW.T. Pike). W.T. Pike. Briehton.Phillips, J. 1867. A ~ ono~ia~h of BritishBelemnitidae. Palaeontogr. &.(-.l. Pt 3.1871. Geology of Oxford andthe valley of the Thames. ClarendonPress, Oxford.Report. 1871. Report of the Commissioners. . . . Coal in the United Kingdom (3vols.). HMSO, London.Royal Society of London. 1879-1918.~ataloe~e of scientific papers, 1864-1900.Murray, London (Vo1.8, 1879); CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge (Vo1.16,1918).Salter, j.~. 1861. On some of the higherCrustacea from the British CoalMeasures. 8. Jlgeol. Soc. Lond. 17,528-533.Smyth. W.H. 1851. Hartwellianae.Private circulation, London.Stowe, W. 1831. A short account of the fallof a meteoric stone at Launton inOxfordshire. m. nat. Hist. 4, 139-141.1850. On a cuttine in the railwavnear Buckingham. g. ~1-ueol. Soc. ~oid.6, 134-135.Strachan. I. 1979. Birmineham Universitv~eology Museum. ~ewgl. m. curatorsa. 2, 309-332.Topley, W. 1886. The life and work ofProfessor John Morris. Proc. Geol. Ass.9, 386-410.Vaughan, H.F.J. 1883. Donington church andlordship. m. Shrops. archaeol. &.Hist. h. 6, 1-92.Warwick, G.T. 1967. The centenary history- of - the - S. Staffordshire and WarwickshireInstitute of Mininu Engineers. [Nopublisher or place named.]Waterhouse, R.E. 1954. The BirminghamMidland Institute 1854554. TheInstitute, Birmingham.Whitaker, W. and Watts. W.W. 1889. List ofworks on the Geology . . .. of Shropshire.Trans. Shrops. archaeol. nat. Hist. Soc.12, 33-62.Williamson, W. C. 1896.Yorkshire naturalist.Reminiscences of aRedway, London.Hugh S. TorrensLower Mill CottageFurnace LaneMadeleyCrewe CW3 9EUTypescript received 9 ~ecember 1985Revised typescript received 1 July 1986

MR WOOD'S FOSSILS - A TRAVELLINGEXHIBITION'Mr Wood's Fossils' has been prepared by theHunterian Museum of Glasgow Universitv withUassistance from the British Museum (NaturalHistorv): it is sponsored by The Royal Bankof coila and with support from the ~atureConservancy Council and the Scottish MuseumsCouncil. The exhibition is touring museumsin Scotland, England and Wales, 1986-1988(for itinerary, see m. Curator, 4,pp.353-354).'Specimens of enormous scientific interestwhich are amazingly beautiful' said Sir DavidAttenborough when he otficially opened 'MrWood's Fossils' at Glasgow's Hunterian Museumin April 1986, underlining - bv - his words andpresence the signif~cn~~cc of Stan \Voodlsremarkable pnlaunntologio~l discoveries. SirDavid. il Fossil enthusiast himself, toll1 thc300 people present at the opening thathe had thought the 'heroic' period ofpalaeontology was in the past and over. 'Icould not have been more wrong', he said,'for Stan Wood is a hero, a dyed-in-the-woolpalaeontological hero'.'Mr Wood's Fossils' is about Stanley PurdieWood, born in Edinburgh in 1939, and theexciting fossil finds he has made in Scotlandsince 1971. His more recent discoveries havesignificantly altered the story of evolutionand of Carboniferous 'Life on Earth'. Theexhibition is set out chronologically withrespect to Stan's life and palaeontologicaldiscoveries. Themes used are: Meet MrWood; Fossil fishing, Edinburgh 1911-1912;Scotland the Grave (Aiming at Amphibians),Cowdenbeath 1914-1978; Suburban sharkhunting, Rearsden 1981-1982; Bathgate Beasts1984- , the world's oldest complete landamphibians; and A Future for the Past?EXHIBITION REVIEWGlasgow suburb of Bearsden, we see the sharkStethacanthus, palaeoniscoid fishes and theshrimp Anthracophausia all living in shallowtropical seas more reminiscent of Bermudathan Scotland's largest city! At the sametime the exhibition shows that the fossils,ancient as they are, provide a link with thepresent and have a place in today's world.Even the postcards on sale reinforce thismessage, albeit in a tongue-in-cheek way.One entitled 'Yesterday's Cod' shows aspecimen of the palaeoniscoid fish Gonatodusamong present day chips and newspaper.Another showing a 'punk' image ofStethacanthus, one of the Bearsden sharks,with its toothed 'brush' on its first dorsalfin, provides an image that everyone canrelate to. It is this sort of touch thatmakes the exhibition so special.A variety of methods are used to communicatewith the visitor, including well-illustratedand clear poster-boards to guide you aroundthe exhibition and interactive quizzes whichmake sure you're thinking about theevolutionary relationships of what you'veseen. A quarter scale reconstruction ofCrassiavrinus scoticus, an 'amphibiancrocodile'over two metres long, helps toflesh-out some of the discoveries. A videoentitled 'Stan. Stan the Fossils Xan' and oneshowing 'sand-blaster' preparation ofBearsden sharks provide an interestinginsight of Stan at work, both in the fieldand in the palaeontological laboratory. Onepart of the exhibition shows the treatment offossil material from its collection, throughpreservation and conservation, to formaldescription, giving a nice collage of the'nuts and bolts' of palaeontology. The endof the exhibition is marked by 'A Future forthe Past?' with a cartoon audiovisualconcerned with conservation and concomitantproblems.As you go through the exhibition you arestruck by the unique and extraordinarycollection of fossil 'firsts' on display.These include the world's oldest completefullv - ~landnoina amohibians from nearS~ U .Bathgate; the world's oldest harvestmanspider; a fine complete Carboniferous fossilshark from Bearsden; and the firstreconstruction of the 2.5m long 'amphibiancrocodile'found near Cowdenbeath. Clearlyaiming at introducing Mr Wood and his fossilsto a wide audience, the exhibition works hardin its presentation to make the fossils 'comealive'. It successfullv bridges the 340million yeargap lbetween thefossils and ourselves by taking us back intime to a land that is both familiar andstrange. That land is still Scotland but,through detailed reconstruction of the exotichabitats in which the animals lived, theexhibition conjures up a very differentlandscape and climate. For example, in thereconstruction of the area that is now theMichael R. SandyDepartment of GeologyUniversity of DaytonDayton, Ohio 45469The fossils themselves display the enormousscientific interest and amazing beauty ofwhich Sir David spoke in his openingaddress. Yet again Stan Wood's presence isfelt. Some of the exhibition's specimenlabels are not the traditional format labelsof museum collections (a 'keystone' ofcuration nonetheless), but personalised notesand comments that are both comprehensive andclear. You get the impression you arereading directly from Stan Wood's fieldnotebook.A tribute to both Stan Wood and his fossils,'Mr Wood's Fossils' will prove to be one ofthe most significant palaeontologicalexhibitions of the century. The press andmedia coverage Stan Wood and this exhibitionhave received means that palaeontology musthe on to a winner! Now Stan Wood, our localhero' could become an international star ifpossible plans for the exhibition to go tothe USA come about. Whatever your geologicalinterests, don't miss the chance to visitthis exhibition!Typescript received 25 July 1986

LETTERS TO THE EDITORDear Editor,THUMBS UP CAMPAIGNAndrew hlathieson has expressed (Geol. Curator4, p.329) understandable concern that theleaflet 'Rocks, Fossils and Minerals: how tomake the best of your collection' doesgeology a disservice on at least two counts:1. 'It does not demonstrate how specimensprovide evidence for past life andenvironments.. . . .'2. It ignores the 'problems of geologicalsite conservation brought on by overcollecting'.For an educationalist who has had dailycontact with young enthusiasts over manyyears. Andrew's stance depresses me and Ifear would depress the infant geologicaltyro. We were faced with a genuine, andwidespread need that was reflected in theexperience of most of those serving on theGCG Committee three years ago when the ideawas first discussed. The problem was simplythis: what to do about the stream of smallchildren who bring bags of assortedgeological goodies to the enquiry desks ofmuseums up and down the country every year?The principle on which the leaflet is basedis that we should build on and try to channelthe collecting instinct, not stifle it andeither kill the child's enthusiasm or drivethe child away from the museum and itsinfluence.The new orthodoxy which preaches that allamateur collecting E E should bediscouraged is on dangerous ground morallyand risks the alienation of the children thatmuseums are there to serve. Such an approachis far removed from the NCC's GCR thinkingand indeed Bill Wimbledon was one of thosewho gave the draft leaflet the thumbs up!This is, no doubt, in part due to the factthat the opening salvo of the leaflet states'never collect from cliffs or quarry walls. . . . collect from fallen blocks and wastetips'. Hardly an incitement to thedespoilation of the scientific heritage.It is a leanet and a book. For thatreason we quite deliberately omitted all thefascinating things to which a study offossils, rocks and minerals may lead. But wedo repeatedly direct the child to the localmuseum for further information (which couldinclude alternative safe sites from localrecord centres, interpretation etc.) and toliterature that will lead to an understandingof what the child has found.Dear Editor,At the risk of preaching to the converted (Ireally want to reach non-geological curatorsof museums with geological collections) Iwould like to support Bob King's commentsregarding unscrupulous mineral collectors(Geol. Curator, 4, p.330).Further, I think that custodians of materialheld in the public domain should also bewareof offers to 'sort out' their collectionsmade by academics seeking research material.Though their motives might (and probablywould) be genuinely altruistic, theirapproach would almost certainly not be thatof a trained and experienced curator. Arapid sort through in the course of a fewdays could not possibly provide a balancedview of a large and neglected collection. Arecommendation to dispose of material aftersuch a cursory examination would seem (to me,at any rate) irresponsible in the extreme.Local museum collections are not simplyreceptacles for high quality andlor rarespecimens. They also reflect human socialand scientific history. To this end theywill orovide a verv unbalanced viewooint if'expirtsl have been allowed to dispose ofeverything which appeared to them 'not worthIt must be remembered that academic expertisedoes not necessarily equal curatorship,although an offer of help, made by arespectable academic, might seem temptingindeed to a non-geological curator with asmall mountain of 'dirty stones' in theproverbial basement. However, one would liketo think that curators faced with suchproblems would, as a matter of course,request advice from GCG before committingirrevocable action. The availability of suchan advisory service cannot be brought toooften before the attention of the rest of theprofession.Yours faithfullyAlan C. HowellClifton VillaLittle St. John StreetSt. Peter PortGuernseyChannel IslandsYours faithfully,Tristram P. BestermanCuratorCity of Plymouth Museums and Art GalleryDrake CircusPlymouth PL4 8AJ

Dear Editor.Your readers will be interested to hear thebackground to my short note in the Bulletin- of Horsham Museum Society, no.36 (September1985). which was reprinted in the GeologicalCurator, vo1.4, p.300, under the title 'Oneway to dig a dinosaur'.Rudgwick Brickworks do not normally allowcollectors to enter their pit, although I andMuseum Society members had been there onprevious occasions. Only the day before thedinosaur bones were discovered I was informedby telephone that a visit to the clay pitwhich I was to have led was not possible,owing to expansion work being carried out,and that while I would be permitted accesspeople unknown to the staff would not beallowed to visit. I was given permission totake essential photographs of the bones insitu before excavation, but this was on theunderstanding that photography would belimited to just that. My Bulletin articlewas written for the benefit of Museum Societymembers and workers at the brickworks, as a'thankyou' to those people who gave up theirtime to help with the excavation.Rudgwick is a small pit producing highquality bricks to special orders so they hirea sub-contractor to excavate clay for a shortperiod during mid summer. When we wereinformed of the find on the Tuesday morningthe curator, Elizabeth Kelly, was unable toleave the museum at that time; we weretherefore grateful that staff at thebrickworks were able to stay after hours sowe could go there in the evening.It was obvious that if any more finds werethere they would probably be destroyed thefirst thing the next day as the most likelyplace for them to be was in the next strip tobe removed - although there were no signs atall to help in tracing them.I was unable to go there the following dayowing to lack of transport and thought thatby the time I was able to get there onThursday it would merely be a case ofsearching through already excavated clay.Remember that the original find had beenmoved and deposited by the excavator, and forall any one knew the rest of it could alreadyhave been destroyed. This original find wasonly spotted because the driver stopped tospeak to Mr Morris Zdrzalek, who as soon ashe saw it reported it to Horsham MuseumI was not expecting to be permitted tocollect the material for more than the oneday and was surprised to find that we wereable to continue until the Sunday. If I hadmade the find public at that stage the worksmight well have objected and perhaps not havereported any more finds. This was not anideal situation, but I tried to make the bestof it.I was pleased to find that the driver hadavoided the strip we hoped to look at and wasworking in another area. However, we couldfind no clues to further material, andneither could we probe the grey clay (whichwas harder than usual because of the hotweather). In desperation I gave the driverpermission to remove the strip half an inchat a time while we watched intently. As soonas I saw the dark stain appearing I haltedthe machine and we were able to exposeseveral undamaged bones. Rain the next dayenabled us to probe the area thoroughly onthe following Sunday and find three morebones which were slightly lower down in theclay. We also found some small bits in thespoil heap. Several members of the brickworks staff gave up their Sunday to workunder my direction.I was in error in my article when I describedsome finds from Rudgwick as scales from theskin; they were of course the small fishteeth that are common in the Paludinalimestone and in the Hasting's Beds at CliffEnd.I visited the brickworks again on 11 December1986 to collect some fragments found by themen after they had been washed out of thespoil heap. There were several fragments ofa lower jaw with part of the tooth sockets(no teeth, however); also some waterwornscales of Lepidotes and two fishcoprolites. After the first finds werecollected in 1985, the directors of thebrickworlcs gave me permission to come againif necessary. I hope if anything else isfound, and if it is another important find,that specialists would be permitted to comeand remove them - a situation I would muchprefer.Yours faithfully,Mrs Sylvia M. StandingRichmond Cottage23 Soencers RoadHorshamWest Sussex RH12 2 JQ

LOST AND FOUNDCOMPILED BY DONALD I. STEWARD AND HUGH S. TORRENSAbbreviationsAGASSIZ - Agassiz. J.L.R. 1844-1845.Monographic des Poissons Fossiles du VieuxGres Rouge ou Svsteme Devonian (Old RedSandstone) Britanni-s g &Russia. Neuchatel.ANDREWS - Andrews, S.M. 1982. The discoveryof fossil fishes in Scotland up to 1845.Rovd Scottish Museum, Edinburgh.BURRE - Peerage or LG (Landed ~eitry), referto the relevant edition of these works.CHALMERS-HUNT - Chalmers-Hunt, J.M. 1976.Natural history auctions 1700-1972.Sotheby Parke Bernet, London.CLEEVELY - Cleevely, R.J. 1983. Worldpalaeontological collections. BritishMuseum (Natural History) and MansellPublishing Company, London.DNB - Dictionary of national biography.GeologicalGCG - Newsletter ofCurators' Group, continued as TheGeolouical -r.LP - 'Lost and Found' reference number inGCG.MURCHISON - Murchison. R.I. 1839. TheSilurian Svstem. John Murray, London.4 Beniamin Heywood BRIGHT (1787-1843)CLEEVELY, p.65GCG, 1(1), 18; 2(3). 126-121; 3(4). 238MURCHISON, pp.414, G26Murchison (p.626) alluded to 'the richcollection of Mr. Benjamin Bright' and(0.414) 'BY far the Ereater Dart of thesechoice specimens [we-dock fossils1 have beencollected by Mr. Benjamin Bright in thequarries upon the estate of his father atBrand Lodge'. The Murchison subscribersaddress was given as 'Bright, BenjaminHevwood. Esa.. * . FGS. &C., Stone Buildinas - .~iicoln's-Inn'. Figured specimens previouslysought, and via the LF columns (see GCGentries above), have not yet been found, hutwe live in hope (see Fig.l)! It is possiblethat a search of the Malvern Museum and the(former?) Malvern College collections mayproduce some results.55 Francis DOWNING (1777-1857) andMrs. DOWNINGCLEEVELY, p.105GCG, 2(3), 125-126; 2(6), 352; 2(9&10),614: 3(4). 238-241structure of the Dudley district' (p.485)whose iob as a mining aeent eave him aworking knowledge or tte geiogy of Dudley.Further figured specimens may be atBirmingham ~niveisity ~useum as thecollection of William Mathews (1828-1901)housed there contains original Downingmaterial (GCG, 2(6), 352) (see Fig.2).56 Henrv William INWOOD (1794-1843)CHALMERS-HUNT, pp.83, 179GCG, 2(3), 126; 2(9&10), 614We have already sought crinoids figured byMurchison (1839) in The Silurian Svstem fromthe collection of H.W. Inwood (GCG, 2(3),p.1261, and then suggested the possibilitythat the fossil collector was the same man asthe London based architect Henry WilliamInwood (1794-1843) of the DNB, who is knownas a collector of antiquities.This is made almost certain because thearchitect can be recorded as a collector ofnatural history specimens, as becomes clearfrom a letter he wrote on 9 July 1834 from 5Southampton Place, Euston Square, London toJohn Thomas Hope MP (1761-18541, father ofF.W. Hope (1792-1862) the entomologist.this Inwood wrote on the subject of thescarab beetle (Ateuchus sacer), revered andreproduced as gems by the ancient Egyptians.Inwood sought information for his study, ofwhich only two parts were published in 1834,'Of the Resources of Design in theArchitecture of Greece, Egypt and othercountries obtained by .... studies .... fromNature', in which he drew parallels betweenthe fluting of Doric columns and theformation of certain shells. In this letter(preserved in the Hope MSS, EntomologyLibrary, University Museum, Oxford), he wrote'I purchased the series [of scarabs1 in Mr[Adrian Hardy1 Haworth's collection[auctioned in June-July 1834 (Chalmers-Hunt,p.83) 1 and some from Mr. [Rev. LansdownlGuilding's [FLS, FGS, FZS; 1797-18331 ... but Ihave not yet commenced my plate on them.... May I presume to submit to you that I amonly as an Architect and Antiquarian applyingmyself to such parts of Entomology asillustrate the researches I am now preparingfor publication'. It becomes clear from thisletter that Inwood also saw in the mineralKingdom inspiration for all the 'mostbeautiful examples of all the geometricalforms as well as of the pyramids andobelisks'.InIt has already been recorded in the LPSimilar inspiration must have come from thecolumns that Mrs. Downing provided fossil world of fossils and Inwood's fine collectionmaterial figured by Murchison, whilst it was of these was sold at auction between hisher husband 'My kind friend Mr Downing of the death in 1843 and 1863 (GCG, 2(9&10),Priory [Dudleyl, to whom 1 am above all other p.614). No sale catalogue has yet beenpersons indebted for an acquaintance with the traced (Chalmers-Hunt, p.179).

Fig.1. Specimens figured by Murchison (1839) in he Silurian System, provided by Bright.A, PI. 7, fig.2, Homalonotus Kniehtii, Upper Ludlow, ~ n s l ~ u d l o w B. . PI.? bis. fie.3.. U .Bumastus ~arriensis, Wenlock Lst., ~alv&ns. C, ~1.14, fig.9, paradoxides bimucronatus,Wenlock Lst., Malverns; D, P1.14, fig.11, Asaphus longi-caudatus, Wenlock Shale, Malverns.E, P1.14, fig.15, Acidaspis Brightii, Wenlock Lst., MalvernsIDudlev. F, P1.17. . fie.9. - .Actinocrinites exiiinsus, Wenlock Lst., Dudley. Reproduced at approximately originalpublication size.127 John Towrv BURGON (c.1789-1870) looking for other unrelated material haveand John Alfred BURGON (?-1871)shed new light on these two which seems worthputting on record.GCG, 3(4), 248-249; 3(5), 323; 3(6), 397The Staffordshire Advertiser (17 DecemberH.S.T. writes: 1842) recorded that J.T. Burgon, wholesalehardwareman of Bucklersbury, had to surrender'In previous LP 127 notes we tried to unravel to the Court of Commissioners in Bankruptcythe story of the collections of J.T. and J.A. on 21 December 1842. Despite the dividendRurgon. Accidental discoveries whilst announced for his creditors on 21 August of

Coal Fossils in the Denstone College MuseumFig.2. Specimens figured by Murchison (1839)in The Silurian Svstem, provided by theDownings. A, P1.17, fig.4,Dimerocrinites decadactvlus, WenlockLst., Dudley. B, P1.17, fig.6,Cvathocrinites pvriformis, Wenlock Lst.,Dudley. C, P1.17, fig.8. Actinocrinitesarthriticus, Wenlock Lst., Dudley. D,P1.18, fig.3, Marsupiocrinites coelatus,Wenlock Lst., Dudley. Reproduced atapproximately original publication size.Fig.3. Some Denstone College fossils;from Smith, W.B. 1915, Cambridge countvgeographies: Staffordshire, p.34.Cambridge University Press. (WalterBernard Smith was the Senior ScienceMaster at Denstone College; the fossilsillustrated are not referred to in thetext .)the following year (Staffordshire Advertiser5 August 1843) this bankruptcy must haveaffected both his collecting pursuits and hisscientific standing thereafter. The Times (21January 1870, p.1) recorded his death 'on the19th. January at 2 Claremont Terrace, Hackneylate of 35 Bucklersburv, Citv [of London1 inthe 81st. year of his age'. This gives hisdate of birth as c.1189 and adds further, ifcircumstantial, evidence that he must havebeen a younger brother of the Thomas Burgon(1797-1858) mentioned in GCG 3(4). p.249.John Alfred Burgon was the only member of theBurgon family to have been elected FGS (JohnThackray, pers. comrn.), becoming so on 13April 1836. His collection of fossils in1838 was noted in GCG 3(5), p.323. Since hisCity address was the same as J.T. Burgon's,and from what follows below, we must assumehe was a son of J.T. Burzon. JAB'S death wasreported to the Council ofvthe GeologicalSociety on 21 February 1872, and is likely tohave occurred in 1871 and not, as we reportedearlier (GCG 3(6), p.3971, in 1872. Fromsome of the sponsors of his election as FGS -Edward Turner (1798-1837: first professor ofchemistry and lecturer in geology atUniversity College, London) and Robert EdmundGrant (1793-1874; first professor of zoologyand comparative anatomy also at theUniversity College) - we must assume J.A.Burgon was one of the first geology studentsat that college.'

161 DENSTONE COLLEGE CollectionGCG, 4(5), 293-294Tom Sharpe (Dept. of Geology, National Museumof Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF1 3NP)writes:'It may be of interest to record that the NMWacquired several specimens from the CyrilBrett mentioned in connection with DenstoneCollege (see also Fig.3). The firstacquisition in 1923 from 'Prof. Cyril Brett,Denstone College Museum, Staffs.' comprisedsix fossils from the Trias and six specimensof salt pseudomorphs from the Keuper Mar1 ofStaffordshire, and the second in 1934 from'Cyril Brett MA. 23 Lon-y-dail, Rhiwbina',comprised gem gravel (sapphire and garnet)from Butte, Montana, USA.'169 Figured specimens from 'The SilurianSystem' (Murchison 1839)GCG, 4(6), 347MURCHISON, p.702Further details of our original request [LF1691 for information about the figuredsoecimens still beine sought bv J.D.D. Smith(international ~omm~ssion-on foologicalNomenclature, BM(NH)) have here beensubdivided. for ease of reference. intoseparate LP entries under the names of thecollectors associated with individual'missing' specimens; the listing of these,in their LF number order, is as follows:LF 4 BRIGHT, Benjamin Heywood:GCG, 1(1), 18; 2(3), 126-127; 3(4), 238.LF 54 MURCHISON, Roderick Impey:GCG, 2(3), 125.LF 55 DOWNING, Francis, and Mrs:GCG, 2(3), 125-126; 2(6), 352; 2(9&10),614; 3(4), 238-241.LP 56 INWOOD, H.W.: GCG, 2(3), 126;2(9&10), 614.LF180 BIDDULPH, OrmusLF181 BOWERBANK, James ScottLF182CARTWRIGHT, [CorneliuslLF183 EVANS, W[illiaml RLowlandlLF184 GOODHALL, Il[enryl H[umphreyslLF185 BERSCHEL, Sir JohnLF186LF187LF188LF189LF190LEWIS, Rev. Thomas TIaylorlMALCOLMSON, John GrantMARTIN, JohnOLLIVANT, Rev. AlfredSTOICES, CharlesLF191 STRICKLAND. Hugh EdwinIt has not been possible to attribute six ofthe figured crinoid specimens to particularcollections, only that they must be from thecollections of either Bright, Murchison orInwood. These are reproduced here as Fig.4.174 Rev. ELdmundI JERMYN 11845-19251Michael A. Taylor (Keeper of NaturalSciences, Museum and Art Gallery, GeorgeStreet, Perth pH1 5LB) writes:'In 1895 the museum of Trinity College,Glenalmond near Perth received 'a largecollection of fossils, minerals and rocksfrom the Rev. E. Jermyn'. This donation wasfollowed in 1900 by a 'nearly completeIchthyosaurus from the Blue Lias ofSomerset'. None of these donations areidentifiable in the surviving geologicalmaterial from the school museum which passedon to Perth Museum and Art Gallery lastyear. Any information about Rev. E. Jermynand, in particular, the fate of theichthyosaur would be most welcome. There areno indications of the size or state ofpreparation of the latter.'H.S.T.Writes:'The donor of this collection is the Rev.Bdmund Jermyn (1845-1925). He attendedWestminster School in whose school record(Barker and Stenning 1928, pp.515-516) he isrecorded thus:Jermyn, Edmund, eldest son of Hugh WilloughbyJermyn Iwho also attended Westminster] by hisfirst wife; b. Oct.17, 1845; adm. Oct.1,1858; elected to Ch. Ch. Oxon. 1864. matric.May 18, 1864; shot for the Chancellor'sChallenge Plate at Wimbledon againstCambridge 1868; Burdett Coutts Scholar1870; B.A. 1869; M.A. 1871; ordained1870; Curate of St. Paul's. Oxford. 1870-2;S.P.G. [Society for the Promotion of theGospel?] Secretary at Madras 1873-4;Chaplain on the Bengal EcclesiasticalEstablishment 1875-94; Rector of Newenden,Kent, 1894-7; Vicar of ZIelsby, Cheshire,1897-1903; Rector of Croughton, Northants.1903-12; m. 1st. Feb.3, 1873. Katherine,daughter of Lieut.-Col. Joseph Chambers, ofOxford; 2nd, Oct.8, 1878, Constance Barre,daughter of Charles Paget Carmichael, ofHove, Sussex; d. April 8, 1925.The most significant item recorded here isthat he was a Burdett-Coutts Scholar atOxford University in 1870. These had beenendowed in 1861 as 'two scholarships for thestudy of geology and of natural science ashearing on geology each of an annual value ofabout 6115 and tenable for two years'. Theyhad their origin in a donation from thebanker and philanthropist AngelaBurdett-Coutts (1814-1906) (see DNB1901-1911, p.262). She at the same timepurchased the Devonian fossil collection ofher scientific mentor William Pengelly(1812-1894) and presented that to the OxfordUniversity Museum in 1860 (Pengelly 1897,p.93).

Fig. 4. 'Missing' crinoids, figured by Murchison in Silurian System (1839).A, P1.17, fig.&, Cvathocrinites capillaris, Wenlock Lst., Wenlock/Dudley. B, P1.11, fig.5,Dimerocrinites decadactvlus, Wenlock Lst., Dudley. C, P1.18, fig.1, Cvathocrinites rugosus,Wenlock Lst., Dudley. D, P1.18, fig.4, Actinocrinites moniliformis, Wenlock Lst., Dudley.E, P1.18, fig.6, Cyathocrinites tuberculatus, Wenlock Lst., Dudley. F, P1.18, fig.8,Actinocrinites moniliformis, Wenlock Lst., Dudley. Reproduced at approximately originalpublication size.

Jermyn's geological work while aBurdett-Coutts Scholar has not been examinedbut this may well explain the origin of muchof the donaiions of 1895-1900 to TrinityCollege, Glenalmond. However,the dates ofthe donation have a possible doublesignificance. First Edmund's two children,E.A. Jermyn (1881-1908) and L.A.S. Jermyn(1886-f1.1955). were then attending theCollege (1893-.l900 and 1897-1905 respectively;Quinton 1955) and this alone may explain howthe Jermyn collection came to be doiated.On the other hand,Edmundts father, HughWilloughby Jermyn (1820-1903) (for whom seeBarker and Stenning 1928, vol.1, p.516; Venn1947, p.569) was Primate of Scotland,1886-1901, and would have had closeconnections with Glenalmond, the 'official'episcopalian college for Scotland. H.W.Jermyn had been Rector of Nettlecombe inSomerset, 1858-1870, while his son wasstudying geology at Oxford, and this mayexplain the origin of the nearly completeSomerset ichthyosaur donated in 1900. Ifmaterial from the father's collection wasincluded it would be worth investigating ifthis Jermyn collection could also haveincluded material from earlier members of thefamily whose relations are shown below:IPeter Jermyn(solicitor of Halesworth, Suffolk)IIPeter (dates?) Henry (1787-1820)IGeorge Bitton (1789-1857)IHugh Willoughby (1820-1903)IEdmund (1845-1925)Henry Jermyn above of Sibton Abbey, Suffolk,Edmund's great-grand-uncle, was a subscriberto William Smith's (1769-1839) greatgeological map of 1815 and a personal friendof Smith from about 1813 (Phillips 1844,p.73). His collections of Suffolkantiquities came to the British Museum (Venn1941, p.569) so it is at least possible hewas also a collector in the field of geology.'Barker, G.F.R. and Stenning, A.H. 1928.The Record of Old Westminsters, 2 vols.Chiswick Press, London.Pengelly, H. 1891. A memoir of WilliamPengellv of Torquay m, geologist.John Murray, London.Phillips, J. 1844. Memoirs of William--Smith LL.D. John Murray. London.Quinton, G.St. 1955. The GlenalmondI{ecistcr: a recorrl of all those who hnxr?ntcrcrl 'I'rillity CollcCe, Glcn;ilmo~,1847-1954 (2nd. rd.). Co~,stahlr,Venn, J.A. -1947. Cantabrigienses.part 11, 1752-1900, ~01.111. CambridgeUniversity Press.175 Abingdon's Arkell AmmonitesSee CING 5 (GCG, 4(6), 350)Simon Knell (Travelling Geology Curator, c10Geological Museum, Exhibition Road. LondonSW1 2DE) writes:'Thanks to the efforts of Nancy Hood ofOxfordshire~ ~Countv Museum Service. and Phili~Powell, at Oxford University Museum, many ofthe ammonites previously at Abingdon Museumwhich were a~~ociated with W.J. Arkell havenow been transferred on permanent loan toOUM. A number of these specimens were usedby Arkell in his A Monograph of the EnglishCorallian Ammonites Palaeontogr. Soc. Lond.(1939-1943). The following is a list ofthose transferred, with the OUM number eachhas been allocated:547140 a, b Perisphinctes cvmatophorus(S.S. Buckman), figd. p1.37, fig.2a. b;p.169.547141 a, b P. cvmatophorus (S.S. Buckman),not figd. but labelled by Arkell.547142 a, b, c Aspidoceras akantheenS.S. Buckman, figd. p1.44, fig.la, b;p.206.J47143 G. akantheen S.S. Buckman, not figd.but labelled by Arkell.J41144 Cardioceras moderatum (S. S. Buckman),figd. p1.55, fig.3a, b; p.251.J47145 C. moderatum (S.S. Buckman), notfigd. but labelled by Arkell.J47146 Goliathiceras Arkell.figd. p1.55, fig.Sa, b; p.253.547147 G. rhodesi Arkell, mentioned p.254.J47148 G. microtrvpa S. S. Buckman, figd.p1.58, fig. 2a, b; p.262.541149 G. microtrvpa S.S. Buckman, figd.p1.58, fig.3.Five ammonites associated with W.J. Arkell atAbingdon Museum remain to be found. Three ofthese are only given brief mention and wouldbe difficult to isolate. The remaining twoare of special importance and are certainlynot in the collections at Abingdon. The'missing specimens are:Aspidoceras crebricostis Arkell, mentionedp.206.cardioceras serrigerum (S. S. Buckman),described p.226.C. dorsale S.S. Buckman var. subdorsaleArkell, figd. p1.53, fig.Za, b; describedGoliathiceras Arkell. Holotype, figd.p1.55, fig.4a-e Ireproduced herein asFig.51; described p.253.G. Arkell, mentioned p.263.Any information about the possible fate ofthese specimens would be gratefully received.'176 George F. MATTHEW CollectionRandall F. Miller (Assistant Curator ofGeology, The New Brunswick Museum, 277

Fig.5. tlolotype of Goliathiceras rhodesi Arkell. From Arkell, W.J. 1942. The Ammonites of theEnglish Corallian beds. Palaeontogr. a. (Monogr.), part 8, p1.55, fig.4a-e. Reproduced bypermission of the Palaeontographical Society.Douglas Avenue, Saint John, New Brunswick,Canada E2K 1E5) writes:'Never really lost, rather just welltravelled, a collection of invertebratefossils dating from about 1880-1920 from themaritime provinces of Canada has found itsway back to the New Brunswick Museum. Thecollection of G.F. Matthew, including manytype specimens, was sent to B.F. Howell atPrinceton University by Matthew's wife andson William following the elder Matthew'sdeath in 1923. By good fortune and thegenerosity of Dr Ron Pickerill, Universityof New Brunswick, Fredericton, thiscollection has returned to Saint John whereit was originally stored. Field notebooks.original manuscripts, maps, and lettersaccompany the collection.In addition, type specimens of Carboniferousinsects from 'Fern Ledges'. Lancaster (SaintJohn), N.B. have been recovered from museumstorage. This and other collections from theold Natural History Society of New Brunswickshouldsoon be made available along with a typecatalogue .'171 William STOWE CollectionHugh S. Torrens (Lower Mill Cottage, FurnaceLane, Madeley, Crewe CW3 9EU) writes:'Two queries are raised in the article onDaniel Jones (GCG. 4(8),pp.493-501) relatingto the fossil collecting of William Stowe ofBuckingham. Firstly, mention is made of a'fossil-rush' in 1856 at Tingewick,Buckinghamshire where brick-clay was beingextracted; the response to a note in theTimes (6 January 1857) was overwhelming andit would be interesting to collate specimensin museums which originated from thissource. Secondly, the fate of Stowe'spersonal collection is also unrecorded; hedied on 22 June 1860 in Buckingham andcircumstantial evidence indicates that thecollection remained in the family until atleast 1811. Any information about either of.these two points would be welcome.'178 Daniel JONES CollectionHugh S. Torrens (Lower Mill Cottage, FurnaceLane, Madeley, Crewe CW3 9EU) writes:'The Daniel JoneslRichard Spooner Coopercollection (see GCG, 4(8) p.493) may not havebeen of high value in scientific terms, butit is of great interest because of the roleit played in stimulating an unexpected careerin geology. The fate of the collection(contained in a 50 drawer cabinet andillustrative of most geological formations)is uncertain. , but it is oossible that it;assed to the ~eolo~icaiMuseum of BirminghamUniversity. Strachan (GCG 2(6)', 309) recordsthat the accession books are not very'helpful' between 1900 and 1906 and thenentries cease until after the First WorldWar; this is the period when the collectionmay have arrived unrecorded. Any informationto substantiate the fate of the collectionwould.be gratefully received.'

179 Specimens from the wrecks of LABOUSSOLE and L'ASTROLABE off BotanyBay. Queensland, Australia (La PBrouseExpedition 1785-1188)Sue Turner (c10 Queensland Museum, GregoryTerrace, Fortitude Valley, Queensland,Australia 4006) writes:'Mr Ron Coleman, curator of MaritimeArchaeology, Queensland Museum, presented foridentification by the Geology Section of theMuseum a find from the hold of the wreck ofone of the two ships which had carried the LaPBrouse Expedition. The soecimen wasidentified as a fossil bivalve, a ratherpoorly-preserved lamellibranch steinkern,coated with limonite, and, unfortunately,damaged in the hinge region; it is probablyof Mesozoic age. The fossil is only onesample brought up from the scientificcollections which must await retrieval untilthe next field season in the Solomons Group.The collections include fossils, rocksamples, and a Recent shell collection.Naturally, no labels have survived the 200years since the fateful night when LaBoussole, La ~e'rouse's flagship, andL'Astrolabe, perished on the reefs ofVanikoro. However, the specimen is certainlyone of the earliest collected from thePacific region. It presumably came fromsomewhere on the expedition track, whichincluded the western seaboard of NorthAmerica, Kamchatka and Siberia, Japan, thePhillipines, Easter Island, and, the finalport of call before the disappearance of theships in March 1188, Botany Bay on theeastern shore of Australia.Jean Francois de Galaup, comte de la PQrouse(1741-17881, was selected in 1783 to lead thescientific expedition organized by the ancienm e . The large-scale, comprehensivescientific survey, the plans of which weresupervised by Louis XVI, was designed tovisit the Pacific and Indian oceans. TheFrench Icing, who had been fired by readingCook's account of his trip, wished the surveyto clear up a11 the remaining great mysteriesof the 'South Seas', including those of thenew Southern continent. After investigatingthe unknown coasts west of Cape Horn, andaround the Pacific rim, La PQrouse wasexpected to survey the western and southerncoasts of Australia. His expedition waswell-equipped; La Pe'ronse was a carefulinvestigator who aimed at perfection, and whowas prepared to allow time for theachievement of his scientific goals,especially in natural history. At eachlocation the scientists were sent ashore withtime to conduct surveys in a detailed manner(Marchant 1982).After his Pacific trip La Pgrouse did notadhere to his orders, but sailed for the newBritish settlement at Botany Bay, which hehad heard about en route. His shipsapproached the harbour on 24 January 1788,almost simultaneously with Captain ArthurPhilip and the First Fleet. The sighting ofships half-panicked and then excited thesettlers but before the French could put inadverse winds prevented their arrival andthey did not reappear until 26 January. Theywere then escorted into Botany Bay where LaPQrouse and his men spent February buildinp astockade, an observatory, and replacing twoboats. His scientists spent their time'botanizing, star-gazing and geologizing'(Eldershaw 1938). The French ships set sailagain on 10 March and disappeared at sea.The mystery of their loss was not solveduntil 1827, when Irish Captain Peter Dillongathered information about a wreck andsurvivors at Vanikoro in the Santa Cruz Group(then New Hebrides). Dillon searched thearea and discovered hard evidence of ashipwreck which was later confirmed in Franceas Dart of the La Pe'rouse expedition. Dumontd'~rvi1le then went in search-of relics andleft a memorial on the spot.Only in 1986 have the wrecks of theexpedition been scientifically investigatedand it seems probable that the geologicalcollection comes from Boussole. Thespecimens were undoubtedly collected by thescientist from La Boussole, M. de Lamanon,who was in charge of natural philosophy,mineralogy and meteorology. He notes in aletter sent early in the voyage to M.Condorcet, perpetual secretary to the FrenchAcademy of Sciences, that he and Abbe' Mongeswere determining their respective limits asregards to mineralogy. The ~bb6, who wasexpert in ornithology, microscopic animalsand cryptogams, left the ship at Tenerifebecause of ill health. Thus the geologicalobservations devolved upon de Lamanon, whoseduties also included ichthyology, entomology,conchology, and magnetic observations. Otherexpedition scientists and naturalistsincluded Dufresne and Father Receveur onL'Astrolabe.The team from the Queensland Museum will heworking on the wrecks for the next two orthree years, depending on the availability offunds from private industry.'Eldershaw, M.B. 1938. Philip of Australia.Angus and Rohertson Publishers,(paperback edition 1977), London, Sydney,Melbourne, Singapore, Manilla, 367pp.Marchant, L.R. 1982. Francq Australie,Artlook Books, Perth, xvi + 384pp.180 Ormus BIDDULPHBURKE, LG 1894, 1, p.148MURCHISON, pp.414, 626Murchison noted that 'Mr Ormus Biddulph has asmall collection of fossils of the Wenlocklimestone at Ledbury Park' (p.414); hlr OrmusBiddulph, 'whose cabinet has furnished otherspecies for illustration of this work', foundthe figured specimen of Lituites? Biddulphii(p.626); and 'the park of Mr Biddulph' wasat Ledbury (p.411). The list of subscribersincludes: Biddulph, John, Esq., 14 NewStreet, Spring Gardens and Ledbury; andBiddulph, Rev. J., Amroth Castle, Tenby.H.S.T.writes:

Fia.6.Specimen figured bv Murchison- (1839j in The glurian kvstem, providedby Biddulph. P1.ll, fig.8, LituitesBiddulphii, Lower ~udlow, Ledbury.Reproduced at approximately originalpublication size.'Tbe relationships between these threemembers of the Biddulph family are revealedin the pedigree published by Burke (LG 1894,1. p.148). John Biddulph senior was born in1168 and marrying in 1797 had, with sixdaughters, four sons who all attended HarrowSchool, namely: Robert (1801-1864) ; John(?-l8811 - he of South Wales above; FrancisThomas; and Ormus, whose collection weseek. Ormus' nephew Michael, son of Robert,was elevated to the Peerage in 1903 as BaronBiddulph. His descendants still live atLedbury and it would be worth investigatingif they still possess this Biddulphcollection.However, my inadequate notes from a clearlytoo short visit to Worcester Museum record inthe basement a specimen of BiddulphiSowerby from Ledbury labelled '0. Biddulph -Type'. The existence of this is confirmed byRosemary Roden (h&.to H.S.T. 5 December1919). With the original figure herereproduced (Fig.6) we hope its status can beconfirmed and details of whenlif and whatBiddulph collection reached Worcesterproperly confirmed.'181 James Scott BOWERBANK (1197-1877)CHALMERS-HUNT, p.103CLEEVELY, p.63Cleevely recorded that Bowerbank was awealthy London distiller whose largecollection of British fossils was used forhis own research and by contemporarypalaeontologists. On his retirement to St.Leonards-on-Sea. Sussex in May 1864 thecollection was offered for sale to the BM(Nf1)but was eventually auctioned at J.C. Stevensin November-December 1865, when the BMCNH)purchased a large number of importantFig.7. Specimens figured by blurchison(1839) in The Silurian System, providedby Bowerbank. A, P1.15 bis, fig.10, 10a,Svrinoopora reticulata, Gleedon Hill,Wenlock. B, P1.15 bis, fig.13, S.coespitosa, Wenlock Lst., WenlocklWoodhope. Reproduced at approximatelyoriginal publication size.specimens. A copy of the sale cataloguesurvives in the BM(N1I) Palaeontology Library(Chalmers-Hunt) and this may shed light onthe possible purchase of the sought figuredcorals from Murchison's (1839) The Silnrian(Fig.7). Some other specimens arewith the BGS collections; Liverpool Museumalso purchased 100 British fossils in 1865but these were destroyed during the SecondWorld War (see GCG 1(6), p.257).182 [Corneliusl CARTWRIGHT (of Dudlev)[?-l8671 18681MURCHISON, pp.492, 498Murchison paid tribute to the collection oflocal fossils possessed by a Mr Cartwright.an eminent surgeon of Dudley, and to hislocal geological knowledge (pp.492, 498);the subscribers list includes 'Cartwright,W.H., Esq., Dudley', but in Murchison's(1842) Inaugural Address.. .at.. . the Dudleyand Midland Geological Society (published byR. and J.E. Taylor, London) three members ofthis Cartwright family are named:1. Cornelins Cartwright Esq. of Dndley islisted as having donated or lent material tothe embryonic Dndley Museum and as a firstTrustee of the new Society; he was elected aMember of the Royal College of Surgeons ofLondon 1804, was Mayor of Dudley 1821 anddied 1867-1868 (Calendar of the Roval Collegeof Surgeons 9 July 1868, p.260, Taylor andFrancis, London; Hannah and Chandler 1949,p.192).2. Rev. \(.H. Cartwright, Vicar of Dudleyfrom 1835 and of Compton Martin, Somersetfrom 1845; he is listed as the donor of alarge coral to the new museum and as a lifemember.3. Rev. Henry Antrobus Cartwright(c.1774-?l, who graduated BA Oxon. 1795 andBD 1808, is listed as the donor of WealdenReptilia from Sussex from his TrinityCollege, Oxford address; he was an annual

183 W[illiaml RLowlandl EVANS 11810-18421BURKE, as listedCLEEVELY, p.114MURCHISON. pp.212. 554Fip.8. S~ecimen ~rovided bv Evans andliguvctl it! 'rhc Silurit~n Syjtell! byM u h l : ~1.26, fig. 12) ,ISCophinus m, Upper Ludlow, Ludford.Reproduced at approximately originalpublication size.subscriber to the Dudley Society and was theson of a former vicar of Dudley, Joseph.From this it seems likely that the donor of thecrinoid figured by Murchison (p1.11, fig.3,the original of Hy~anthocrinites decorus,from the Cartwright collection) isCornelius: the eminent surgeon, RobertGarner - who relied much on the Dudley Museumcollection for his list of fossils ofStaffordshire (Garner 1844, pp.446-461) - indescribing the Silurian crinoids there,reDorted them to have come in Dart fromilussrs. ICor~~cIi~~sl C~~rtwri~:l~l U I I ~ l(;k?

Fig.9. Specimens figured by Murchison(1839) in The Silurian System, providedby Goodhall. A, P1.15, fig.14, 14a,Heteropora -a, Wenlock Lst., BenthallEdge. B, P1.15 his, fig.8, 8a. Favositesspongites, Wenlock Lst., Benthall Edge.C, P1.16, fig.lla, Cvathophyllumturbinatum, Wenlock Lst., ?loc. D, P1.16bis, fig.9, 9a, Cladocora W,Wenlock Lst., Benthall Edge. Reproducedat approximately original publicationsize.11797-18721, the enterprising explorer ofSouthern Africa' (p.583). The untracedspecimen Homalouotus Herschelii (P1.7 bis,fig.2) [herein Fig.10) is referred to byMurchison - 'This is the only foreignspecimen figured in this work, and I haveselected it, because it marks the fact, thatthe eminent astronomer. after whom it isnamed, occupied a portion of the time hepassed in Southern Africa in promotinggeological investigation. The fossil wasfirst sent to me by him'.Sir John was based at the Cape of Good Hopefrom 1834 to 1838 (Buttman 1974) when'scarcely any branch of Science escaped hisattention'.His diaries in South Africa werepublished in 1969 (Evans 1969) and may shedfurther light on this untraced trilobite.Andrew Smith, its collector who was in SouthAfrica 1821-1837, was 'for several years.. . .director of the government civil museum atCape Town without salary' (DNB). It ispossible that the specimen was returned tothe museum after Murchison had figured it.Fig.10. Specimen figured by Murchison(1839) in The Silurian Svstem, providedby Herschel. P1.7 bis, fig.2,Homalonotus Herschelii, Devonian, CedarMountains, Southern Africa. Reproducedat approximately original publicationsize.Buttmann, G. 1974. The shadow of thetelescope. G biography of JohnHerschel. Lutterworth Press, Guildford.Evans, D.S. 1969. Herschel at the Cape.University of Texas Press, Austin.186 Rev. Thomas TLavlorl LEWIS (1801-1858)CLEEVELY, p.184MURCIIISON, p.201Murchison wrote of 'my friend the Rev. T.T.Lewis': 'The application of his leisurehours to the cultivation of the naturalhistory of his neighbourhood may one dayenable Mr Lewis to confer uwon Avmestrv thecelebrity which White has b&ueati;ed to-Selborue' (p.201). Cleevely recorded thatthe Lewis iollection of fossils was dividedbetween several institutions. The BM(NH)purchased a small remnant in 1898, the BGShas a large part of the Palaeozoic collectionpresented to the Geological Society between1834 and 1842, and the Yorkshire Museum, York,has Palaeozoic fossils donated 1830-1836. Asingle donation of fossil remains of Silurianfish was made to the Shropshire and NorthWales Natural History Society in 1836 (GCG,2(6), 364). T.T. Lewis's important work inconnection with Murchison's Silurian Svstemhas been the subject of a special study byThackray (1979). See Fig.11.Thackray, J.C. 1979. T.T. Lewis andMurchison's Silurian System. Trans.Woolhope mt. Fld Club, 42, 186-193.

Fig.11. Specimens figured by Murchison(1839) in The Silurian Svstem, providedby Lewis. A, P1.7, fig.7, Calvmeneblumenbachii, Wenlock Shale, LudlowlDudley. R, P1.26, fig.10, Spongariumedwardsii, Upper Ludlow, Bircher Common,Aymestry. Reproduced at approximatelyoriginal publication size.Fig.12. Specimens figured by Murchison(1839) in The Siurian Svstem, providedby Malcolmson. A, P1.2 bis, figs. 5, 6,Holoptvchius sp., ORS, 4 miles S.ofElgin. B, P1.2 his, fig.7, Ichthyolites,ORS, 4 miles S of Elgin. Reproduced atapproximately original publication size.181 John Grant MALCOLMSON (1802-1844)AGASSIZ, as listed belowANDREWS, various pagesCLEEVELY, p.194An exhaustive account of the life of JohnGrant Malcolmson (17 November 1802 to 23March 1844) was given by Andrews who recordedthat JGM was very active geologically between1836 and 1840 in the Elgin area,whilstrecovering from an illness which hadtemporarily forced him to leave his medicalwork in India. During four years in Scotlandhe visited Hugh Miller in Cromarty, formedclose friendshius with members of the ElginScientific Association (including John Martinand Rev. G. Gordon), exhibited ORS fossilmaterial at the Geological Society in London(including the Scaat Craig teeth belonging toMartin and figured by Murchison), and alsotook the same material to Paris for LouisAgassiz to examine and figure in hismonograph on ORS fish (Agassiz, Tab 28a,fig.18; Tab 30a, figs.16-18; Tab 33,fig.28; of these only Tab 30a, figs.17-18belonged to Malcolmson) . An obituaryappeared in the Rombav Monthly Times Summarvof Intelli~ence for April 1844 (l May 1844,~.50, co1.4 - p.52, . co1.2); he was outlived~by his brother James (1801-1860).stated that it was found 'four miles to thesouth of Elgin, by Mr Martin of thattown'(p.600).Andrews detailed the geological activities ofJohn Martin, Schoolmaster at GeneralAnderson's Institution at Elgin and curatorof Elgin Museum from 1840 until his death.He formed a close friendship with John GrantMalcolmson during the recuperative stay inScotland of the latter and they accompaniedeach other on many geological collectingtrips. An obituary appeared in the mCourant and Courier (17 May 1881, p.5).Martin may have sold specimens to geologistsand museums, but the bulk of his largecollection from Scaat Craig was presented toElgin Wuseum. The specimen belonging toNartin figured by Agassiz (Tab.28a, fig.18 inhis monograph on ORS fish and wronglyattributed to Malcolmson) and by Murchison(P1.2 bis, figs.8, 9) is apparently lost(Pig.13).None of the several Martinsmentioned by Cleevely appear to correspond tothis person, but the Rev. G. Gordon (whoMurchison noted as a collecting companion ofMr Martin) has material - mainly Triassicreptiles - in Elgin Museum, Royal Museum ofScotland, RMCNII), and BGS.Andrews reported that John Grant Malcolmsondonated material to the Geological Society ofLondon, the Museum of the Royal AsiaticSociety, Bombay, and Elgin Museum. Acollection of fossils and minerals remainingat his mother's house in Forres after hisdeath went to the Falconer Museum, Forres in1869 - two years prior to its officialopening. See Fig.12.188 John MARTIN (1800-1881)AGASSIZ, Tab.28a. fig.18ANDREWS, various pagesMURCHISON. p.600In referring to a tooth (P1.2 bis, figs.8,9) from the Old Red Sandstone, MurchisonFig.13. Specimen provided by Martin andfigured in The Silurian Svsteln byMurchison (1839. 01.2 bis. fies. 8. 9) as~oloptychius or '~egalichthvs: ORS, 4miles S. of Elgin. Reproduced atapproximately original publication size.

Fig.14.Specimens figured by Murchison (1839) in The Silurian System, provided by Ollivant.A, P1.27, fig.2, Nereites Sedgwickii. Llandovery, Lampeter. B, P1.27, fig.4, NemertitesOllivantii, Llandovery, Lampeter. Reproduced at approximately original publication size.

Fig.15. Specimen provided by Stokes andfigured in The Silurian Svstem byNurchison (1839, p1.14, fig.10) asParadoxides quadrimucronatus, WenlockLst., Dudley/Malverns. Reproduced atapproximately original publication size.189 ,Rev. Alfred OLLIVANT (1798-1882)MURCHISON, p.699Alfred Ollivant (16 August 1798 to 16December 1882) was Vice-Principal of St.David's College, Lampeter, [Dyfed], 1827-1843(DNB). It was during this period that hediscovered the trace fossils figured byMurchison 'in the schistose building-stone ofthat place ILampeterl' (p.699). The originalspecimen of Nereites cambrensis (P1.27,fig.1) was recognised in the Powysland Museumcollection from Welshpool when it wastransferred to its current home at theNational Museum of Wales in 1962 (Bassett,M.G. and Owens, R.M. 1974, Fossil Tracks andU. National Museum of Wales, Cardiff).See Fig.14. 'l90 Charles STOKES (1783-1853)CHALMERS-HUNT, p.94CLEEVELY, p.277Cleevely noted that Charles Stokes FRS, FGSwas a London business man who collected rareand interesting specimens for use byspecialists such as Murchison. A largecollection of 751 lots, including mineralsand fossils, made by Stokes was sold in June1854 at Sotheby's in London after his death.Two copies of this sale catalogue, both withprices noted, are recorded (Chalmers-Hunt).The bulk of his collections were supposedlyto have gone to the BM(NH) but some materialis also with the BGS and the OxfordUniversity Museum. See Fig.15.AGASSIZ, as listedANDREWS, various pagesBURICE, as listedCLEEVELY, p.279MURCHISON, pp.21, 597The subscription list in The Silurian Svstemrefers to 'Strickland, Hugh E., Esq.,Cracombe IIouse, Evesham, Worcestershire'Fig. 16. Specimen provided by H.E.Strickland and figured in The Silurianby Murchison (1839, p1.2, fig.14)as Ctenacanthus W, ORS, Sapey,Worcestershire. Reproduced atapproximately original publication size.and his geological activities wereacknowledged (Murchison, pp.21, 597).Fig.16.SeeHodgetts (1986, pp.15-18) provided somefamily and ephemeral details regarding HES'sassociation with the Malvern Naturalists'Field Club. Cleevely reported that a largecollection was bequeathed to the SedgwickMuseum, Cambridge, in 1888, by the wife ofHES, and that material presented to theGeological Society by HES between 1841 and1853 is with the BGS. Andrews (p.44) noted aHES specimen figured by Agassiz (Tab 14,figs. 6, 7), but then adds (p.77) that noneof the HES fossil collection 'could be tracedto specimens in the Sedgwick Museum,Cambridge' nor in any other of the Oxford andCambridge institutions listed (HES was Readerin Geology at Oxford University 1849-1853).However,the FIBS collection is certainly atthe Sedgwick; as recorded by Woods (1891,p.xiv) it was 'a large and varied collection[which] contains a few figured specimens'.At the last count (GCG 4(4), p.207) 3645specimens in it were listed.Murchison mentioned (as an aside to thecollecting of Benjamin Rright) 'Since myfirst visits to the Malvern Hills, the cityof Worcester has done honour to itself inestablishing a Natural Nistory Society. Anelegant and commodious building has beenerected, the Museum of which, when I last sawit, promised to be soon filled with all thecharacteristic Silurian fossils' (p.414);HES was involved with this (Edwards 1907,p.6). Jones (1980) sketched the foundationof this Natural LIistory Society in 1833 andEdwin Lees (1800-1887), one of the foundingfathers of the Society, reported hisassociation with the 'ardent band whoconceived and formed the.. ..Society' and thatHES took a very active part in forming thenucleus of the museum (Lees 1856, pp.65-66).HES's own first full geological publicationwas read to the Society in 1834 (Strickland1835) and mentioned the museum on a number ofoccasions.Resulting from this early association/connection Worcester Museum has had at leasttwo later 'donations' of HES materialaccording to the printed annual reports ofthe Worcester Library and Museum (m notesby D.J.Smal1 1979). One in 1888-1889 by thelate Miss Frances Strickland, sister of HES

(see Burke 1891, p.1315) whobequeathed a fossil and bone collectionformed by HES; the other by Mr AlgernonStrickland c.1910 of miscellaneous geologicalspecimens collected by the late HES.Algernon Strickland (1837-1914) was thecousin of HES who had inherited his old home,Apperley Court, Tewkesbury (Burke LG 1921,p.1689). Spalding's reference to this lastacquisition as 'purchased 1909' seems to havemisled Cleevely (p.279) into recording it asfrom Sir Charles William Strickland(1819-1909) of Yorkshire who had died in 1909and who was a distant cousin of HES (BurkePeerane 1891, p.1314).Stroud Museum also has a small amount ofunspecified 'Strickland' material (probablyHES) (Doughty 1981).Doughty, P.S. 1981. The state and statusof geology in UI< museums. Misc. Pap,geol. Soc. 13, 118pp.Edwards, H.E. 1907. The Museum as an index....of \Vorcestershire. Bayliss,Worcnst~r. .- . . . Hodgetts, M.C. 1986. Malvern Naturalists----Field Club founded 1852: the earlym. Malvern Naturalists Field Club,Valvern.Jones, M.M. 1980. The Lookers-Out ofWorcestershire. Worcester NaturalistsClub, Worcester.Lees, E. 1856. Pictures of nature in theSilurian -. Lamb, Malvern.Strickland, H.E. 1835. Memoir on thegeology of the Vale of Evesham. Analyst,7 -. i-in. - --.Woods, H. 1891. Catalogue of the typefossils in the ivoodwardian Museum,--pCambridge. Cambridge University Press.Thirty-five million years ago Arsinotherium browsed the African rain forest.exhibition at the BM(NII), 'Discovering Mammals'.From the new permanent-519-

COLLECTIONS INFORMATION NETWORK, GEOLOGYCING 23COMPILED BYBURTON upon TRENT MuseumWhen the museum was closed in 1981, thegeological collections were transferred tothe Burton upon Trent Technical College on aten year loan. The material, c.700 assortedspecimens, is mainly from the collection ofT. Cuthbert Day (donated to Burton inFebruary 1916) and a small collection ofminerals from Miss Jackson. The mould andcast of an example of 'Cheirotherium'footprints found in the local Triassicsandstones went to the Bass Museum, Burton.CING 24CHELTENHAM Art Gallery and MuseumCheltenham Art Gallery and Museum allocatedEl000 towards the care of their geologicalcollection in 1986-1987, aided by a 45% grantfrom the Area Museum Council for the SouthWest, following a survey and report by theAMCSW Geological Officer, Mike Taylor.George Breeze, the Director of the ArtGallery and Museum, accepted therecommendation that priority be given tomaking a start on the basic documentation andregistration of the collection, thuseliminating the risk of specimens beingdissociated from their labels, and sortingout those which have been. Sylvia Humpbrey,who has worked as a geology volunteer atBristol and at Cardiff, has been carrying outthis work under contract at the Citv ofBristol Museum and Art Gallery, where thegeneral facilities of its Geoloev Section.and suitable working space &re put at herdisposal.This splendid news is a tribute to the workof Gaynor Andrews (Assistant Curator of FineArt) who has for years looked after thegeological collection and prevented it fromfalling into still worse, and hopeless,disorder. Mike hopes eventually to reportmore fully on the history of the collectionand to assess the lessons of the recentpastoral work by the AMCSW. Hugh Torrenswill also have his own morals to draw sincehe has been researching the history of theearlier geological collections of Cheltenham,pre-eminent among which were the Literary andPhilosophical Institution and the CheltenhamCollege collections (both long sincedispersed).CING 25 - 36 provides a very basic review ofa selection of museums with geolpgicalcollections, based on the returns concernedwith the up-dating of the 'State and Status'data. The information is intended as anintroduction to the facilities available atthe listed museums, which can be augmentedvia the 'Museum File' of Geology Today, the'Collections, Collectors and Museums of Note'articles in m. Curator, or theDONALD I. STEWARDpublications of the Natural ScienceCollections Research Units. Further entriesin this format will appear in subsequentissues of Geol. Curator. Discretion shouldbe used when reading the listings; a trainedgeological curator is more likely to becritical and accurate with an assessment ofthe state of the collections than others!The recent spate of thefts from museums meansthat access to reserve collections isunlikely to be granted to anyone arriving onthe 'spur-of-the-moment'.CING 25CARLISLE MuseumGeological public service: permanentdisplay; access to reserve collections; nos~ecialist curator: identification service:not a NSGSD record centre.Geoloeical collections: 1,000-5,000specimens; good local coverage of rocks,minerals and fossils; condition mainlygood; systematically stored and mostlyregistered; some figured and cited fossils,possibly some type Lingula from the SkiddawSlates. February 1986.CING 26CLIFFE CASTLE Museum, KEIGHLEYGeological public service: permanentdisplay; access to reserve collections bywritten request and appointment only; onespecialist curator; identification service;NSGSD record centre for Bradford District.Geological collections: 10,000+ specimens(c.16.000); good local and general coverageof rocks, minerals and fossils, also maps,books and some manuscripts; condition fairlygood; systematically stored and MDAdocumentation underway; major strength inpalaeontology; collections represent theamalgamation of those of the boroughs ofIlkley, lieighley and Bradford - all now partof the Bradford Metropolitan Council Museumsand based at Keighley. September 1985.CING 27 North East FIFE District MuseumService, CUPARGeological public service: permanent geologydisplay at Laing Museum, Newburgh; access toreserve collections; no permanent specialistcurator post; identification service; not aNSGSD record centre.Geologicsl collections: 1,000-5,000specimens; rocks, minerals and fossils, somemanuscripts; condition good; systematicallystored and full MDA catalogue; majorstrength in agates. December 1985.CING 28BOWES Museum. BARNARD CASTLEGeological public service: permanentdisplay; access to reserve collections by

written request and appoint~nent only; nospecialist curator; limited identificationservice; nor a NSGSD record centrc.Geological collections: less than 1,000specimens; local coverage of rocks, mineralsand fossils, some maps; conditionindifferent; no system, fewer than halfspecimens with labels. August 1986.CING 29PURNESS Museum, BARROW-in-FURNESS- - ..Geological public service: no dis~lav;access to reserve collections; no specialistcurator; no identification service; not aNSGSD record centre.Geological collections: less than 500specimens; rocks, minerals and fossils, somelocal; condition variable; sorted intoboxes of rocks, minerals and fossils, approx.25% with labels. July 1986.CING 30BATH Geology MuseumGeological public service: permanentdisplay; access to reserve collections byapiointment; one specialist curator;identification service; not a NSGSD recordcentre.Geological collections: 5,000-10,000specimens; rocks, minerals and fossils (thebulk of the material), also maps, charts anddrawings; good condition; stored in drawersand packing cases, most of Jurassic fossilsregistered; major strengths in Jurassicfossils and some good minerals; type andfigured fossils in the Charles Moorecollection. July 1986.CI'NG 31 WILLIAMSON Art Gallerv and Museum,BIRKENHEADGeological public service: no display;access to reserve collections; no specialistcurator; no identification service; not aNSGSD record centre.Geological collections: c. 1,000 specimens;rocks, minerals and fossils; goodcondition; easy to locate, basic catalogueavailable; major strength in minerals. July1986.CING 33 BRISTOL MuseumGeologioal public service: permanentdisplay; access to reserve collection byappointment; two full-time and two part-timespecialist curators; identificationservice; NSGSD record centre for Avon(Bristol Region Environmental RecordsCentre), Somerset (Mendips), Gloucestershireand Wiltshire.Geological collections: 10,000t specimens(c. 500,000); moderate local and generalcoverage for rocks, good for minehs andfossils (over 80% of collection), also maps,manuscripts and photographs; conditionmainly good; systematically stored and mostspecimens labelled; major strengths inPalaeozoic and Mesozoic fossils from the Westof England; c.600 type and figuredspecimens. July 1986.CING 34 TOWNELEY HALL Art Gallerv andMuseums. BURNLEYGeological public service: no display (asyet), a display of local geology of theBurnley area is being proposed for theNatural History Centre; access to reservecollections; no specialist curator;identification service; not a NSGSD recordcentre.Geological collections: 1,000-5,000specimens; rocks, minerals and fossils;condition mainly reasonable; systematicallystored and whole collection registered.August 1986.CING 35BURY MuseumGeological public service: no display;access to reserve collections byappointment; no specialist staff;identification service; not a NSGSD recordcentre.Geological collections: 500-1.000specimens; good local coverage of rocks,minerals and fossils, also maps, manuscriptsand photographs; condition good;systematically stored, labels with specimensbut no register; major strengths in copperminerals. July 1986.CING 32BOLTON MuseumCING 36BUXTON MuseumGeological public service: permanentdis~lav: access to reserve collections; onespiciaiist curator; identification service;NSGSD record centre for Bolton Borough.Geological collections: 10,000t specimens(c.20,000); good local and general coveragein rocks, minerals and fossils. also maps andphotographs; condition 90% good; mostlysystematically stored, most registered;maior strength in local Coal Measuremaierial; type, figured and cited fossilmaterial. July 1986.Geological public service: permanentdisplay; access to reserve collections; onespecialist curator; identification service;not a NSGSD record centre.Geological collections: 10,000t specimens(c.25.000); good local and general coveragein rocks and minerals, very good for fossils(c.908 of collections), also maps,photographs and archives (W. Boyd Dawkins andJ. W. Jackson); condition good;systematically stored and cataloguing on MDAcards ~rogressing: maior strengths in Lower~arboiiferous fo&ils and ~leist&enevertebrates; fi~ured and cited fossils.June 1986.

NOTES AND NEWSCOMPILED BYMIC :HAEL A. TAYLORNEWLY PRESERVED GEOLOGICAL SITE. COVEN? 'RYOn 21 November 1986 Wickes PLC officially'opened' a geological exposure of the CorleyConglomerate, part of the CarboniferousEnville Formation, to scientists. Thelocality is situated behind the new WickesBuildine Su~~lies store on the Radford Roadsection-of the Coventry Ring Road (NGRSP33167955).At this site, one of the largest exposures ofthe Corley Conglomerate, the pebble size isat its maximum development, indicating theexistence of an upland area just to the eastof Coventry at that time. The predominatelylimestone pebbles have yielded marine fossilsof Silurian age, a period not represented inthe Coventry area. The exposure also showsthe overlying sandstones as all the stratadip westwards. The face is some 3-4m inheight and about 30m in length.Access to the face involves a short ladderclimb and visiting parties ought to berestricted in size to around 15-20 people..4nyone planning to visit the site shouldfirst contact Mr K. Oxley, Store Manager,Wickes Building Supplies Ltd., 2 RadfordRoad, Coventry, West Midlands (Tel. Coventry52150). Please do include this site on yourfield trip itineraries and help make Wickes'efforts to preserve it worthwhile. Forfurther information contact John Crosslinc atWarwickshire %luseum, Market Place, warkck CV34 4SA (Tel. 0926 493431).BARYONYX WALKEKI, ALIAS 'CLAWS'The remarkable new carnivorous dinosaur,found in a Surrey claypit in January 1983 byamateur fossil collector Rill Walker, anddescri'oed and named Raryonvx by DrsMan Charig and Angela Milner at the Britishhtuseum (Natural History), is claimed by theRM(NH) to be 'the most important fossil foundin Britain this century' - so much for StanWood's discoveries, or the conodont animal(to name but several)!More than three years have elapsed since theskeleton was excavated by Museum staff inMay-June 1983 (see Cover photograph). Theexcavation revealed the well-preserved,partial skeleton of a large flesh-eatingdinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous (some 124million years old). Carnivorous dinosaursare indeed very rare; only one otherreasonably complete specimen has ever beenfound in Britain (more than a century ago,and no large reasonably complete carnivorousdinosaur of this age has previously heendiscovered from anywhere in the world.Barvonyx differs from all knowndinosaurs in possessing at least onedisproportionately large claw-bone (Pig. l),Fig. l. The gigantic claw-bone, probably fromthe 'hand' of Baryonyx is almost31cm long. Copyright BM(NH).and in several other respects; it is deemedso different even to merit a new family name,Baryonychidae. More than half of theskeleton has heen recovered. This includesparts of the skull, with a snout which isunusually long and narrow for a carnivorousdinosaur, and the jaws with an unusually highnumber of teeth (Fig. 2). Standing on itsback legs the animal was 10-15ft tall.The elongated snout and finely serrated teethsuggest that Baryonyx was a fish eatingdinosaur living near rivers and swamps,perhaps a quadrupedal predator crouching onthe banks rather than a biped stalkingthrough the shallows (see p.536). The Museumplans to exhibit Baryonvx in 1987.

Fig.2. The elongate skull and jaw of Baryonyxover lm. Copyright BMCNH).SHROPSHIRE MAMMOTHSJohn Norton (Department of Natural Sciences,Shropshire County Museum Service, LudlowMuseum) reports:'The discoverv of a mammoth on 27 September1986 from the Amey Roadstone ~orporation'sgravel quarry at Condover, near Shrewsbury,caused great interest and the find wasextensively reported in the press and onradio and television. Shropshire CountyMuseum Service was notified immediately byMr Roherts of Bayston Hill who was taking hisdog for a walk near the quarry and saw thequarryman looking at some large hones whichthey had unearthed with a JCB.Dr Russell Coope of the Geology Department,Birmingham University, visited the site andsupervised throughout the excavation. It ispossible that at least 75% of the bones havebeen recovered.The find is of particular importance as theremains of a baby mammoth have also beenrecovered from the same site; in fact, wehave found a mother and calf. It seemshighly likely that this example will prove tobe the youngest known mammoth in GreatBritain (and probably Western Europe);preliminary dating suggests a late glaciale. The length of the skull is estimated at justage of only about 11,000 B.P. Never beforehas such a complete skeleton been found insuch good condition in Britain, and it willbe possible to study in considerable detailthe development of the animal (for example,the fusion of the epiphyses of the long bonesis apparent). Associated fauna1 remains fromthe matrix indicate a cold harshenvironment. Dating is being carried out atBirmingham University and also at Oxford byDr John Gowlett (Radiocarbon AcceleratorUnit). Dr Adrian Lister (Cambridge) and DrArthur Cruickshank have eiven valuableosteological advice. David-parish (AylesburyMuseum) provided useful information onconservation of the remains and Dr TonySutcliffe (Department of Palaeontology, BMNH)helped a great deal with information aboutBritish mammoths: Dr Peter Toehill and MikeWatson both gavevaluable advice and muchpractical help throughout the project.It is likely that the bones recovered will besufficient to enable us to mount anarticulated skeleton and we very much hope tohave this on permanent display inShropshire. ARC have been extremely generouswith money, labour and machinery for theproject, and all of us at the County MuseumService appreciate their kindness andcooperation.'

THE PRICE OF FOSSILSAngela Milner and Ian Rolfe are collectinginformation on historic and present prices offossils, as a guide to current pricingpractice (and thus to insurance and indemnityvalues of museum collections). To make thisstudy reliable, they would welcome datedexamples of prices that museums and othershave paid for fossils, or for collections ofthem. They need examples of expensive,mid-range and cheap fossils; copies of oldpriced lists of fossils are particularlywelcome, as are illustrations of pricedspecimens, references thereto, and referencesto discussion of this topic. Results will bepresented at a Geological Curators' Group1Palaeontological Association/GeologicalSociety meeting, 'The Conservation ofPalaeontological Sites' (at the GeologicalSociety. Burlington House, Piccadilly, London1-2 October 19871, and published thereafter.Please contact them at the PalaeontologyDepartment, British Museum (Natural History),Cromwell Road, London SW1 5BD (tel. 01 5896323 ext.727) or the National Museums ofScotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF(tel. 031 225 7534 ext.239).ensuring accurate immortality in print (evenWho's Who entries do not necessarily fallinto this category). To avoid complicationswith the Data Protection Act, informationrelating to living persons can remain on A4printed forms, and not stored in a computersystem. Further forms may be used to recorddetails in museum archives and collections(copies again being sent to a centralarchive).I would be grateful for comments on the'HiographyIObituary Form' and any suggestionsfor its improvement .'VICTORIAN MINERAL COLLECTION FOR SALEEx the late Henry Bramall Esq. FGS, Coalownerof Lancashire. Comprising a set of threemahogany cabinets, each of ten drawers,complete with mineral specimens andcatalogue. Inspection can be arranged byappointment. Offers invited.Apply David Bick, Pound House, Newent, Glos.(Tel. 0531 820650). Note: the collectionwould preferably be retained as a whole.A RECORDING FORM FOR BIOGRAPHIES ANDOBITUARIESJohn Cooper (121 Hayes Chase, West Wickham,Kent BR4 OHY) writes:'For nearly fifteen years now the TertiaryResearch Group has employed the 'Biography1Obituary Form' (commonly called the 'BiobitForm'), at present in its Mark 111 version,to record details of some of its members.The purpose of the form is twofold: firstly,to record the details of the lives of theliving whilst they are still with us; andsecondly, to act as a framework on which torecord details of persons now deceased, frompublished and hearsay sources. In this way,it is hoped that curators will be able tomake the work of themselves, researchers andcompilers much easier, or at least to providea 'skeleton' for further studies.After finally reading through the stupendouswork Palaeontolo~ical Collections byRon Cleevely (19831, a book that no curatoror museum should be without, I have producedthe Mark IV version of the Biobit Form whichhas extra categories (see copy enclosed withthis issue of Geol. Curator). At this point,may we all join together in urging RonCleevely and the British Museum (NaturalHistory) to produce the intended second,enlarged edition of this invaluable referencework, or at least a supplementary volume?Ideally, every curator should fill in atleast one copy of the Biobit Form forhimlherself, and update it every three tofive years or so, or more frequently as theyget older. Another copy with basic andnon-confidential details could be sent to acentral source (?Ran Cleevely) and storeduntil needed. The personal or moreconfidential copy should be kept with one'sWill or archives, with instructions for it tobe released upon one's decease, therebyThe Royal Geological Society of Cornwall lastyear launched an appeal for E200.000 tofinance urgent major structural repairs toits home, St. John's Hall, Penzance. Sinceits construction in 1867 the West Wing ofthis fine granite building has housed theSociety's museum (open to the public in thesummer months), lecture room and library. In1952 St. John's Hall was designated a GradeI1 listed building.Because of deterioration to the fabric of thebuilding the museum was forced to close.Nevertheless, the appeal is being supportedby the local business community withdonations already received from the Bristoland West Building Society, and the majorclearing banks.Further details of the appeal can be obtainedfrom Doreen Byron, Appeals Organiser,Sportsmans Ash, Teston Road, West MallingKent (at home on 0732 849017, or at work forRentokil, London Road, East Grinstead on 034227171).DAMAGE TO MINERALOGICAL SITESMembers of the Northern Branch Committee ofthe Russell Society had their attention drawnto several instances of severe damage toimportant mineralogical sites in the LakeDistrict. In particular, the outcrop of theWet Swine Gill antimony vein on CaldbeckFells and a lead-bearing vein on ButtermereFells have suffered excavation andover-collecting to such an extent that littlemineralisation can now be seen g& at theformer locality. Specimens from bothlocalities, no doubt obtained by theseactivities, have appeared for sale in themineralogical 'trade'.

Collecting on this scale and for commercialgain is quite contrary to the objectives ofthe Russell Society and is clearly in breachof the 'Code for Geological Field Work', asendorsed by all major British geologicalsocieties. The destruction of sites in thismanner has severe implications not only forus, but also for future generations who willbe deprived of their scientific heritage.The fact that the sites concerned are in aNational Park is especially disturbing and islikely to result in legal action.Whereas the Council and Northern BranchCommittee of the Russell Society have noreason to suppose that any member of theSociety was involved in these ill-advisedactivities, they would like to identify theindividuals concerned and, if possible, takeappropriate action to prevent any repetitionof this kind of damage. Any help GCG memberare able to give in this matter would begreatly appreciated by the Council of theRussell Society (write to 29 BraunstoneAvenue, Leicester LE3 OJF).DISCOVER MAMMALS IN CENTRAL LONDONThe latest permanent exhibition at the BM(NII)- 'Discoverine Mammals' - was onened inOctober 1986by Lord Dainton, a formerChairman of the British Library. Dominatedby the famous 93 feet long blue whale,'Discovering Mammals' uses a combination oftraditional display techniques andinteractive electronic exhibits to explorethe relationship between a mammal and itsenvironment - with the emphasis onconservation. The exhibition completes thefirst half of the museum's re-display of itsmammals. It fills the old Whale Hall,complementing the re-display of 'Whales andtheir Relatives' (opened December 1984) whichnow forms Dart of the 'new' exhibition. Theremainder of the mammals (early mammals,carnivores and rodents) are due to appear inThe exhibition covers the artiodactyls (deer,pigs, hippos, sheep, cows, giraffes etc.),Proboscidea (the elephants), Hyracoidea (thehyraxes), perissodactyls (horses and zebras,rhinos, and tapirs), Cetacea (whales anddolphins; opened December 1984) and theirfossil relatives. Fossils are integratedamongst their closest modern relatives sothat the visitor can see how palaeontologistswork out what they were like in life and howthey might be related to extant animals.The scientific content of the exhibitionmakes a point of going beyond merelydisplaying specimens. There are largenumbers of specimens in the gallery, but theaim has been to tell visitors about thenatural historv of mammals in its broadestsense, expl&ing about life in naturalhabitats, distribution, conservation status,and adaptations to habitat.Although the exhibition is basically arrangedorder by order, there are also sections thatFig.3. From the new permanent exhibition atthe BMCNH), 'Discovering Mammals'.The giant modelled leg of extinctParaceratberium gives an idea of how bigthe whole animal would have been.Paraceratherium is the largest landmammal that has ever lived - 5m tall atthe shoulder. (Copyright BMNH).-"cover the hioloev of mammals from a differentstandpoint. Examples are 'large size'(Fig.3) on the ground floor, or 'sea mammals'on the balcony. A wide range of media hasbeen used in the exhibition. Large numbersof specimens are complemented by films, soundrecordings, interactive displays,photographs, graphics, and computer games.Conservation of wild populations has beentreated as a vital component of the displaysthroughout the gallery and the conservationstatus of each of the specimens has beengiven along with details of the particularproblems they face for their survival.The content of the exhibition was decidedafter a considerable amount of 'marketresearch' had been carried out with membersof the public to discover what theirbackground knowledge on mammals is, whattheir enthusiasms are and what misconceptionsthey have.The exhibits have, whenever possible, beensubjected to formative evaluation in thecourse of their development. Proposedexhibits were mocked UD and tried out withvolunteer visitors who helped identifyshortcomings before money was spent on finalproduction.

I'aavrn~ra ror TUC Wo~.-Tbc Jouddr Calnusum, ibu r ioWuu d kuthmpa~hu rramU~ hunullne him4 br fillin' I4.W bath with 6,W copin d.n abddpnmt d Unimrl Hidor,. Tk bocb, w ddrd .sd ded. h- b hln ader, bcco .crd in d.rpur~cia La tbr ir, olu-lnd, in thefope, should amu1 dsrrunum d lb. btu +La msw, that they marnunwe the wreck ud d&m future W, rho would &-wiu be l-t d ttu naru which l arc mm to p L.rbL rald.-llirnnoinWdL. rhrtbp clhhbottL-Fm~umbrchoslto-ch trio-MW 2th. -l -dnuotind.Pig.4. An unusual example of real curatorialzeal forwarded by Hugh Torrens (KeeleUniversity). From The Times, 5 November1835. D.I. Fiz.5. Camborne School of Mines, Pool.Redruth, Cornwall; one of themining schools in the UK offering degreesCORNWALL IN THE SPRINGin mining and mineral processing.Kate Pontin (Graduate Trainee, Earth SciencesSection, Leicestershire Museums Service)reports on the GCG meeting held at Camborne(30 May - 1 June 1986) and organised byLesley Atkinson:'The three day meeting started in the museumof the Camborne School of Mines (Fig.5) whereour party was welcomed by Lesley Atkinson(Curator) and Alan Bromley (Head ofGeology). After a look around the pleasingdisplay of Cornish and world wide minerals,we were off to the Ilot Drv Rock Site - thejoint School of ~ines1~e~aEtment of EnergyGeothermal Energy Project in the Carmenellisgranite at ~osemanowes. A film explainedthe principles of geothermal energy and itsdevelopment in this country, after which AlanBromley conducted us around the site. Aftera good Cornish lunch we visited Truro Museum,prilnarily to see the Rashleigh Collection ofminerals (surprisingly without a specialistcurator). And then our first step into thefield for a loolc at the St Agnes-Perranporthmineralised area of sheeted vein pegmatites.That evening we assembled again at the Schoolof Mines to hear an enthusiastic lecture byAlan Bi%omley on granitic intrusion andassociated mineralization. There followed awell illustrated description by CourtneySmales of the life of Phillip Rashleigh, hismineral collection and its internationalimportance.Porthmeor Cove was our first stop on Saturdaymorning: here the contact between a smallgranite intrusion and the surrounding rocksgraphically illustrates stoping and pegmatiteand xenolith formation. At Geevor Mine andMuseum, Martin Mount (mine geologist) showedus an extensive model of the shafts andmineral veins of the area. A filmillustrated the history of local miningtechniques. Inside the Museum, woodencladding to walls and roof cleverly suggestsa mining environment. Martin took us on to~otallack to examine various skarns'containing both garnet and magnetite, as wellas tin ores. Below us towards the shot% therestored Crown Engine Houses were visible,despite the mist. In the evening we weretreated to a wonderful slide show on Cornishminerals and the heyday of Cornish mining byBryan Cooper (Torquay Natural History SocietyMuseum).Sunday began back in the lecture room at theSchool of Mines, where Keith Atkinsonsurveyed mineral exploration techniques,past, present and future (those of today,although more sophisticated, seem no moresuccessful than their predecessors! ). BobKing talked about conservation of mineralspecimens - prevention being better than cure- and described a new technique formaintaining a micro-environment around anindividual specimen. Tristram Bestermanconcluded the morning by describing theBarstow Collection, the life and sadly earlydeath of the collector, and the fight to buyhis collection for Plymouth Museum (see also-- Geol. Curator, 4, p.356). Some members ofthe group made a visit down King Edward Mineafter lunch.Lesley Atkinson arranged the meeting for GCGmembers while Alan Bromley led the fieldtrips and drove the minibus. Congratulationsto them both, and to the other speakers, forproviding an efficiently run, geologicallystimulating and highly enjoyable long weekendin Cornwall.'[Note: Lesley Atkinson describes the museumin Geologv m, 2, pp.88-89, and RobertHunt and his collection in Geol. Curator, 4,129-132.1CHINESE DINOSAURSSpectacular specimens of dinosaurs andrelated fossils from China form thecentrepiece of a large exhibition at theNational Museum of Wales in Cardiff. Theexhibition opened in December 1986 andoccupies two floors of the East Winggalleries at the Museum's Main Building inCathays Park, where it will remain for 16months until April 1988. The exhibition isone of the largest scientific exhibitionsever to leave China, and forms probably the-largest concentration of dinosaurs ever seenin Britain. Cardiff is the only venue inBritain to stage this exhibition.The specimens belong to the Institute ofVertebrate Palaeontoloev andPalaeoanthropology in Xeijing (part of theChinese National Academy of Sciences), which

also provided many of the photographs anddiagrams incorporated in the exhibition.Dr Michael Bassett (Keeper of Geology, NMW)visited China early in 1986 as a guest of theNational Academy to complete negotiations forthe loan and shipment of the dinosaurs.The s~ecimens left Beiiine in earlvseptember, arriving ii ~ardiff in-midOctober. Technicians from China mounted theskeletons within the geological 'sets'designed by Ian Kane, the NMW's ExhibitionsOfficer and his design team. Dr Alan Charig(British Museum (Natural History)) acted asscientific consultant, helping the staff inthe Department of Geology in Cardiff to planthe exhibition.Over the past twenty-five years or so, Chinahas begun to yield enormous numbers ofdinosaurs, rivalling in importance the 19thand early 20th century finds in other partsof the world. The recent expansion ofcultural and scientific links with China nowallows some of these important discoveries tobe seen and assessed more widely.Stars of the exhibition are six complete,free-standing dinosaur skeletons. Oneskeleton, Mamenchisaurus, is the largestfossil ever found in Asia and one of thelargest dinosaurs known from anywhere in theworld, with a neck and head occupying overhalf of its total length of 22 metres.Another distinctive form is Tsintaosaurus, aduckbilled dinosaur with a spike or hornprojecting from the top of its skull. Mostof the forms are unique to China.In adrlition to the dinosaurs, thcrc is also apterosaur culled I,-~maripterus which had nwing-sr,an - of over 3 metres (10 faet).'Nests' of dinosaur eggs, dinosaurfootprints, plus a range of smallerskeletons. skulls and isolated bones are alsoon displa; to illustrate the origins, lifehabits and relationships of dinosaurs andother vertebrate animals. Part of theexhibition concentrates on the submarine lifethat existed when dinosaurs lived on land.Supplementary specimens from Europe and NorthAmerica help to place the Chinese fossils ina world-wide context. Large dinosaurs ofthis kind are rare in Britain, and none havebeen found in Wales (although the evidence offootprints in South Wales indicates thatdinosaurs did Live in the area).The difficult job of shipping the largedinosaur skeletons from China to Cardiff wasundertaken by Overseas Containers (UKAgencies) Ltd. Support for the exhibition isbeing given by the British Council and theFriends of the National Museum of Wales.Further information from Dr Michael Bassett,Keeper of Geology, National Museum of Wales,Cathays Park, Cardiff CF1 3NP (Tel. 0222397951).MR WOOD'S FOSSILS EVOLVE!The attention deservedly given to Stan Wood'sfine fossils from the Carboniferous ofScotland should not make us forget that Stanhas also made great progress with hisbusiness 'Mr Wood's Fossils', as one of thevery few full-time professional fossilcollectors in this country. The ScotsmanMagazine (7 (l), 21-22: colour supplement to- The Scotsman) noted that Stan 'decided totake the biggest gamble of his life. He soldhis house. took a three-month ScottishBusiness School course, and persuadedLivinaston Develo~ment Corporation and the~ank-of Scotland to 'invest in one of themost unusual businesses to come into the newtown - Mr Wood's Fossils.' Now his servicesand discoveries are available to museums,universities and a few private clients on acommercial basis. .'The development of Stan's business, based inan industrial estate in the New Town ofLivingston to the west of Edinburgh, has beendescribed by the Livinaston Courier (11 July1986) as follows:'An amazing 12 months for Livingston fossilhunter Stan Wood was capped last week when hereceived an award - presented by PrinceCharles - as one of Britain's mostenterprising small businesses.Stan's Dedridge-based company, Mr Wood'sFossils, already turning over more thanElOO, 000 worth of business each year, camefourth in the BBC-sponsored competition.Later Stan was told by two judges he mighteven have won if he had employed morepeople! And BBC Director General AlasdairMilne also had special praise for Stan forbringing the first YTS student to the awardsin Astrid McCabe (161, of Polbeth, who hasnow been taken on full-time."It's been a great year for me," said Stan,who has seen his work start a nationwidetour; discussed with David Attenborough theprospect of featuring in a new TV series;graduated from Open University and appearedat countless exhibitions.Stan (471, who has astounded experts with hisfinds, said he was greatly encouraged bywords of praise from Prince Charles."He said he was very pleased with theprogress I had made and he hoped the awardwould encourage me to do even better in thefuture," recalled Stan, who is busycompleting an article for a prestigiousFrench scientific magazine.'NEW FROM BATHThe GCG's meeting of 3 October 1986 at BathGeology Museum had the best ever attendanceof any other than one-off conferencemeetings, appropriately enough in view ofplans for the future of this museum. TheBath Museum News for Autumn 1986 reports:-p-'Two New Museums for Bath. In 1989 a newcentral Reference and Lending Library is tobe built on the Podium site next to theBeaufort 1.Iotel. The Royal Literary andScientific Institute collections at QueenSquare will be transferred as a Trust to the

City Council and re-housed in a new GeologyMuseum in Bridge Street. The vacation of theLending Library will release a large spacefor museum development and over the nexttwelve months consultants working for BathMuseums Service will be looking at this areaand the large lightwell behind the CityMarkets to see whether it would be possibleto create a City Museum for Bath at BridgeStreet.An exciting thematic exhibition is plannedtaking visitors through 2,000 years of thecity's development. This will be linked tothe Geology Museum which will have a specialsection on local geology and the thermalsprings. It is hoped that much neededadditional exhibition space and picturestorage can be provided for the Victoria ArtGallery as part of the development.'NCC NEWSThose of us who have been bemused andconfused by the whole business of geology andthe Nature Conservancy Council at last havean alternative to Granniad articles andfrustratingly incomplete missives from theRt. Hon. William Waldegrave M.P. (or hisminions). The Association of GeologicalConservation Review Contributors has nowproduce(l its own Newsletter towards theflrrthcruncc of thc ssoci~tior~'~ aims: 'thecompletion of the GCR project, the properconservation of the selected sites, and thefull publication of the results of thereview, to the highest scientific standardsand to the satisfaction of the contributorsand the wider geological community which theyrepresent.' Strong words, if only byimplication that the NCC isn't up toscratch? .The Newsletter is produced andedited bv Mike Benton. DeDartment of~eology,~ Queen's ~niversity of Belfast,Belfast BTI INN.SURVEY NEWSGraham McKenna, the Chief Librarian of theBritish Geological Survey, has issued thefollowing notice:'To users of BGS libraries. In May 1986details were issued of the planned transferof material from the Exhibition Road Libraryto Keyworth. The full BGS Library serviceceased to operate at Exhibition Road after 29Aueust 1986: as of 1 Se~tember the BGSoilo on lnformntion 0ffic

Price Institute, Johannesburg, and (parttime) the Open University, has joinedLeicestershire Museums as a contract workeroli the large Mesozoic reptile collections.However, several posts have not been filledby geologists. That common habit of museumdirectors, lumping geology and biology intonatural sciences sections, has lost usseveral places. John Crossling, who has nowbecome Assistant Curator and Keeper ofGeology at Warwickshire Museums Service inplace of Tristram Besterman, was replaced atDerbv City Museum bv a non-eeoloeist. Theexcellent geological ci~ections 'bf teeBuckinghamshire County Museum at Aylesburyare also under the care of a newly appointed~biologist. And, most sadly of all, ouruniversity museums continue to freeze posts:Ian Rolfe is still unreplaced as Keeper ofGeology at the Hunterian Museum, Universityof Glasgow, after his move along the MidlandValley to become Keeper of Geology at theRoyal Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh.ISLE OF PURBECK MODELThe Geology Department of the NationalMuseums of Scotland has in its out-store ageological model of the Isle of Purbeck. Itis unlikely that this museum will ever use ordisplay this model in the forseeable future.We therefore wish to dispose of it to amuseum or similar educational institution inthe Dorset area who would be able to makesome practical use of it. There would be nocost to the recipient of this model otherthan the cost of transport.The model was made by James B. Jordan in1903. It is in three parts, each partapproximately 3 feet by 3 feet across, thewhole being mounted in a large case 10 feet 2inches long by 3 feet 6 inches wide by 3 feet6 inches in height. The case has a glass topand sides, with four sturdy legs; althoughit would require to he repainted beforedisplay, it is not broken or otherwisedamaged. The model itself represents an areaof land from Bats Head to the west ofLulworth Cove in the west to Studland Bay inthe east. Its northern limit is a line threequarters of a mile north of Chaldon Herringand Studland with the southern limitincluding St. Albans Head. The model is to ahorizontal scale of 6 inches represents 1mile and a vertical scale of 1 inchrepresents 440 feet. Although it wouldrequire some re-labelling of villages andother features the model is otherwise insound condition.'The National Museums of Scotland would bevery pleased to see this model go back ondisplay in some suitable institution andlooks forward to receiving applications frominterested bodies. Please contact Dr W.D. IanRolfe, Keeper of Geology, Royal Museum ofScotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF(tel. 031 225 1534).

Sutcliffe, A.J. 1985. On the track of Ice& mammals. British Museum (NaturalHistory),London, 224pp. lSBN 0 565 00869 2.Price £12.95 (hardback).Antony Sutcliffe's infectious enthusiasm forhis subject comes across on virtually everypage of this attractive, popular-style book.His overriding theme is that Ice Age(PleistocenelQuaternary) mammals arefascinating and exciting - and so they are.The book is profusely and well-illustrated,including both line-drawings and black andwhite photographs. Outstanding are fivedouble-paged colour restorations ofPleistocene scenes by Peter Snowball.introduction to the subject and gives a biasedview of the relative importance ofparticularly chosen localities. Clearly itis unrealistic to expect anything approachinga comprehensive global coverage in apublication of this nature, but it would havebeen better to have included, for example,more information on Ice Age mammals of NorthAmerica, not just the one atypical site ofRancho La Brea. Similarly, the vastliterature on Continental Europe has beenvirtually ignored, whereas an entire chapteris devoted to the British Isles.In conclusion, however, the book's virtuesfar outweigh any shortcomings and it islikely to have wide appeal both at home andThe text is organised into fourteenoverseas. Not least it is also good valuechaoters. The first two are concerned with for monev.theAimportance of PleistocenelQuaternarystudies and the background of climatic change Anthony Stuartetc. Ch.3, entitled-'Dragons, unicorns, - Castle hluseumgiants and saints', is a light account of the Norwich NR1 3JUcommonlv bizarre wavs in which fossil remainswere inierpreted by-our predecessors. Chs. 4 May 1986and 5 briefly examine fossil occurrences andmethods of dating, res~ectively. Ch.6,'Drawing the threads togethert; is largelyconcerned with the laudable, but notaltogether successful, attempts to correlatethe stratigraphic sequences on land withthose of the deep ocean. Bone caves, aparticular interest of Dr Sutcliffe, areexamined in some detail in Ch.7, followed bya lively account of mammals in Palaeolithicart.Chs. 9 - 13 deal with Pleistocene mammalsfrom various parts of the world in widelydiffering detail. The first of these isessentially about frozen mammoths fromSiberia, while Ch.11 is a useful summary ofPliocene to Pleistocene mammals from the EastAfrican Rift Valley; and Ch.13 deals withthe late Pleistocene, largely marsupialfaunas of Australia. Ch.12, entitled 'TheNew World', is virtually confined todiscussion of jilst two localities - rhecelebrated 'tiir pits' of Runcho La I7rr.i.Ctllifornia and llltirna EsDcl'ali~a C'nvc nmir tl~esouthern tip of patago&. In markedcontrast, Ch.10 (at thirty-four pages by farthe longest in the hook) is a rather detailedaccount of the Pleistocene faunal history ofthe British Isles, with Dr Sutcliffe's owninterpretation of the stratigraphic sequence.The final chapter deals concisely with theintriguing phenomenon of late Pleistoceneextinctions throughout the world. Was thedemise of such animals as giant deer,mammoths, mastodons and ground sloths due toclimatic changes or over-hunting byPalaeolithic man? No conclusions areoffered: as is very properly noted, muchwork has yet to be done before we can answersuch questions.Although in many ways the book is excellent,1 do have one major criticism. The book'suneven coverage detracts from its value as anAnon.1985. Guide to the Mineral Collection-- of the Passmore Edwards Museum. PassmoreEdwards Museum, London, 32pp. ISBN 0 90612306 2. Price £3.00 (including postage).This is a small but well produced guide in A4format. It consists of two main sections,comprising an introduction to minerals in ageneral sense and a listing of specimens heldby the Passmore Edwards Museum. Adescription of the collection is includedtogether with brief details of its history.The publication is illustrated with a numberof A5 size photographs of minerals from thecollection.First impressions of this publication aregood, but 1 must confess to considerablemisgivings after a more detailedexamination. It is far from clear who theauthors intended the guide to he useful to.From the point of view of the interestedlayman, the information produced describingmineral species is more comprehensivelycovered in any number of easily availablebooks. The section which covers the mineralcollection itself (which incidentally takesup less than half of the publication) is ofminimal interest to the layman, as itconsists of lists with very little extrainformation. It may have been useful to haveincluded more details on the history of thecollection itself (if such informationexists). From the standpoint of a personwith a serious interest in mineralogy theguide is again, 1 am afraid, of little use.The collection, as is evident from thelisting, can only really be described asmodest, both in terms of the specimensthemselves and associated data. This is notcriticism, but the need to publish lists ofminerals from such a collection in thismanner should be questioned.

The illustrations are of high quality buthave little visual impact, partly because thespecimens themselves are not particularlygood, but more importantly because they donot fill the frame, producing a rather oddeffect. The Guide is not a success becausethe authors do not seem to know what they aretrying to achieve. The result is a glossybooklet containing information which would bemore at home as a number of photocopiedsheets. The reasons for producing such apublication as this are unclear.Andrew NewmanThe Hancock MuseumNewcastle upon Tyne NE2 4PT12 May 1986King, R.J. (ed.). 1982-1985. Journal of theRussell Society, vol.1, nos.1-3.Amateur collectors and museum curators havemuch in common in their quest to preserve andexpand their mineral collections, so it ishardly surprising to find that the Journal ofthe Russell Society contains much of interestto the mineral curator. The Russell Societv. -.founded in 1972, has a national membership ofmainly amateur, but dedicated and highlyrespectedmineralogists. Its objects ire-topromote education and interest in mineralogy,to preserve mineralogical sites and material,and to develop mineral sites for scientificresearch.There has been a long-standing need for ajournal to publish papers on topographicmineralogv which are now so rarelv . given -space in existing academic periodicals. TheJournal promises to fulfill this need. Itattemots to match in academic standard the~inerilogical Record, a beautifully producedand lavishly illustrated American journal,containing a wealth of species and localityinformation for the serious collector. Thereare no lavish colour photographs in theJournal yet, and illustrations often lack anindication of scale. Publication is somewhaterratic (no.1 in 1982, no.2 in 1983, no.3 in1985). Early teething problems have hit theformat too. Nos.1 and 2 have a clear singlecolumn layout. The double column format inno.3 has a tiny typeface, enormous marginsand lots of empty page between articles.The papers published in the first threeissues of the Journal are informative,concise and very readable. They span twomain subject areas, topographic mineralogy,and the identification and curation ofmineral specimens.Reports of new discoveries of mineralsdominate the topographic papers. They givethe precise location, historical andgeological details of the site, and describethe mineral association with comments onparagenesis. Some compare new localitieswith existing British or foreignoccurrences. A second group of topographypapers are historical reviews; for example,of the occurrence of galena in Leicestershire,and phosgenite and matlockite inDerbyshire. These well-researched reports,based on literature and specimen searches,coupled with the authors' personal knowledgeof the localities, are particularlyenlightening for those of us with old andsometimes mislabelled specimens!There are only three locality reports forsites not notable for new mineraldiscoveries, the Isle of Sheppey in Kent,Fall Hill Quarry in Derbyshire and DyliffeMine in Powys. These are particularlywelcome for collectors and curators alike.With so much knowledge about minerallocalities shared among Society members, itseems a shame they wait until a new mineralis discovered (often in a small and uniqueoccurrence) before publishing anything of theother minerals found at that site. Perhaps aless formal 'notes and news' approach mightencourage more contributions of this kind?Papers on the identification and curation ofmineral specimens include the description ofa computerised mineral identificationpackage, notes on the storage of radioactiveminerals, and the first three parts of aseries by Bob Icing (who, incidentally, editsthe Journal) on the cleaning and care ofminerals. Part 1 covers the initial cleaning(i.e. washing) of newly collected specimens;it contains helpful lists of species easilydamaged by water, with advice on alternativecleaning methods for these. Part 3 givessome excellent advice to those of a lesscuratorial disposition, on how to recordfield data, transport specimens and care forpotentially metastahle material. Again thereare invaluable lists of species prone todeliquescence, efflorescence, heat and lightdamage, and other forms of instability, alongwith suggestions for preventative measures.Part 2 of this series, devoted to the'development' of minerals, fills me withconsiderahle alarm. Some methods may bejustified as the only means of exposingotherwise obscured minerals. For example,Californian henitoite can onlv be seen whenthe surrounding natrolite is removed.Techniques which endanger the existence ofassociated minerals by removal of coatingsand encrustations - all to increase theaesthetic appeal of the specimen - arerightly condemned by the author. Indeed, hepoints out that these techniques maypermanently damage the long-term chemicalstability of the specimen, or leave it withan artificially etched appearance. Why,then, does he quote all manner of recipes toreach ends which he himself deems unethical?He says, for example, there can 'be no casefor development of any kind' (no.2, p.63) forthe removal of the typical associatedsecondary minerals coating native copper -and then gives a choice of four differentrecipes to-remove the secondaries! These usesodium hydroxidelsodium tartrate, potassiumcvanide. . glacial acetic acid. and elacialacetic acidlconcentrated sulphuricacidlsodium bichromate, respectively. Otherreci~es mentioned in oassins usehydrofluoric acid! ~urthermore, there islittle tradition among amateur mineralogists,and certainly none among mineral dealers, for-531-

ecording the details of developmentprocesses as an essential part of specimendocumentation. Surely it is irresponsible togive tacit approval to techniques which mayboth destroy the scientific value of themineral specimen, and be very hazardous to anoften ill-equipped amateur collector.Still, perhaps this will not be a problem formost of us. If the advice given in theEditorial of no.3 is followed, our provincialand university museums are unlikely toreceive the benefits of new mineraldiscoveries, or perhaps entire collections.They are attacked for their lack of aconservation tradition, for theirvulnerability to the whims of directors andheads of departments, and for their all toohuman curators who cannot be trusted to holdand safely divulge the contents of mineralsite records. Such records are, according tothe editor, already held, and should only beheld by the Nature Conservancy Council.This attack (by a staff member of awell-respected national museum) should not goundefended. A 'letters to the Editor' columnwhere inter alia such a defence could bemounted, would be a useful addition to avaluable and long overdue publication.The Journal of the Russell Society isavailable free of charge to Society members,or for a non-member subscription of E5 perannum from: Dr R.J. King (Editor), NationalMuseum of Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF13NP. Prices of back issues available onrequest.The Mineralogical Record is published by:Mineralogical Record Inc., 7413 N. MowryPlace, Tucson, Arizona 85741, USA. Price $27per annum (6 issues).Monica T. PriceMineral CollectionsUniversity MuseumOxford OX1 3PR16 May 1986Impey, 0. and MacGregor, A. (eds.). 1985.This stately and impressive volume containsthirty-three chapters, all except one beingbased on papers presented to a symposium heldat the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, in July1983. The symposium was part of thecelebrations which marked the tercentenary ofthe opening of the Ashmolean Museum to thepublic in May 1683.Chapters in the book, like the papers in thesymposium are arranged in three groups.Chs.1-20 deal with individual collections orwith groups of collections in the principalcities of Europe; Chs. 21-26 consider thedifferent categories of material which wereincluded in the collections such as classicalantiquities, scientific equipment, shells andskins; and Chs. 27-33 deal geographicallywith the materials from Africa, China, Indiaand other exotic localities which found theirway to Europe. The only major omission fromthe volume, which is noted in the Preface, isthat there is no essay on any of the earlycollections in France.There is much to interest geological curatorsin this volume. Most of the collectionsdescribed in the first twenty chapterscontained some geological materials amongtheir natural wonders. A number of them arealready familiar to geologists throughreferences to their great contemporarycatalogues in the classic histories ofZittel, Adams and Geikie. Writers in thisvolume give us a new and refreshingly broadperspective on the collections ofAldrovandus, the Vatican, Olaus Worm andothers, by considering each collection as awhole and in its historical and geographicalcontext. However, many of the geologicalreferences are quite new, at least to me.Ch.12, on the museum of the HessianLandgraves in ICassel, for example, gives afascinating account of a collection with animportant geological element in its lateryears. Any mineral curator who is thinkingof mounting a new display should read Ch.10,on the Munich Cabinet, where stones, mineralsand corals were set out in elaborate'arrangements' under tall glass domes.In the one purely geological chapter, HughTorrens gives a pioneering account of earlycollecting in the field of geology. Hebegins his story with Georgius Agricola'sNatura Fossilium (15461, and shows howgeological collections were established andalso made use of in Germany, France, Italy,and Switzerland by the year 1600. Geologicalcollecting in Britain did not get under wayuntil about 1650, but thereafter progress wasrapid, and a number of 17th century museumsare described. Tucked in at the end of thepaper are some comments on the development ofcuratorial techniques which are mostwelcome. The most telling comment on earlycuratorial techniques (or lack of them) comesin Michael Hunter's paper on the early RoyalSociety collections. He quotes from thejournal of Von Uffenbach, a Dutchmantravelling in England in 1710, on the subjectof James Petiver's collection: 'Everythinghe had was kept in true English fashion inprodigious confusion in one wretched cabinetand in boxes.' Would that things weredifferent today! It is a pity that Hugh wasnot given a little more space to develop histhemes, but I expect all thirty-three authorscould have written more with ease.Quite apart from its actual geologicalcontent, the volume is full of historicalpoints which are of interest and relevance toanyone working in museums today. Ch.6, forinstance, touches on the various purposesbehind early collections; Ch.8 on theemergence of publicly owned museums, Ch.14 onthe social aspects of collections, and Ch.15on the influence of political disturbance onmuseums. To counteract Von Uffenbach's'English fashion', there is the account of

early North American artifacts in Sir HansSloane's collection in Ch.27. Here theemphasis is on documentation, not only usingsurviving labels and inventories, but byresearch into his correspondence, where manyof the pieces in his collection are mentioned.Individually every one of the thirty-threecontributions to The origin of museums isinteresting, and most are very readable.Many contain material which has never beforebeen available in english. Taken togetherthe contributions give a rich and manyfacetedimage of the treasures andcollections of 16th and 17th century Europe.Some of the writers look up from their ownallotted topic to draw comparisons or to putforward ideas of general relevance, but onthe whole the reader is left to draw his orher own conclusions as to the ways in whichmuseums did originate, the different formswhich they took, and the ways in which theyevolved through the centuries. A moresubstantial introduction could have drawn outsome of these points and provided a valuablesynthesis. The reader is left knowing agreat deal about the history of individualmuseums and collections, but not much more on'the origin of museums' as such. Indeed, inwriting this review, I found myself using theword 'collection' rather than 'museum'.perhaps because of a lingering uncertaintyover exactly what museums are and how theydid originate.~ohn C. ThackrayGeological MuseumExhibition RoadLondon SW7 2DEenlargement of scope the aims of theInstitute were no longer clear, and manydepartments did their own thing with littleor no reference to a central objective. Thestory of the repeated reorganisations of theseventies and eighties, the increasinginfluence of N.E.R.C., and the decreasinginfluence of the Director is very revealing.Under the Rothschild proposals N.E.R.C. gotthe Survey into a position where over 80% ofthe staff were on contract work and theregular mapping programme almost ceased. Itbecame indeed a consulting organisationrather more than a scientific institution.Moreover N.E.R.C. used the earning power ofI.G.S. (now renamed B.G.S.) to subsidise itsother (biological) activities. Symptomaticof the changes is the fact that the heads ofunits lost their scientific titles (e.g.Chief Petrographer, Chief Palaeontologist)and became simply 'managers', providingadministrative support rather than scientificleadership.From a curatorial point of view there is nomention in the book of the Survey'scollections or of the way they areorganised. The book is nevertheless veryreadable, meticulously researched, and is tobe recommended as a way of understanding howthe present situation with the Survey hascome about. There is no index, which seemsreprehensible from an academic publisher.William H. C. RamsbottomRiponNorth Yorkshire26 June 198624 May 1986Wilson, H.E. 1985. Down to earth: onehundred and fiftv vears of the ~ritish-Geological Survey. Scottish Academic Press,Edinburgh and London. (iv) + 189pp. ISBN 07073 0473 3. Price 69.75 (paperback).The early history of the Geological Surveyhas been covered in two previous volumes byFlett (1937) and Bailey (1952). This bookaims to bring the history up to date tocoincide with the 150th anniversary of theSurvey in 1985. This is not, however, an'official' history, and there are somereferences to earlier years, a number ofanecdotes about amusing incidents andeccentric members of staff, and a collectionof Survey songs given at the annualgeologists' dinners.Up till about 1966 the Survey remained aprimarily strategic force in British geologyand its aims were clear-cut: the productionof maps and memoirs with a very minor amountof consultative work. Hydrogeology had beentaken in during the thirties and geophysicsin the forties, but essentially the earliertraditions continued. Following theamalgamation with the Overseas GeologicalSurveys, the formation of the Institute ofGeological Sciences, and the arrival ofN.E.R. C. everything changed. With thePaine, C. 1986. The local museum - notes foramateur curators (2nd edition). Area MuseumService for South Eastern England, MiltonKeynes. ISBN 0 904752 03 8. Price E4.00(+ El postage and packing).This publication is clearly a response to thesituation in which new museums continue to beset up at an alarming rate, often at theinitiative of enthusiastic amateurs and withinsufficient thought and forward planning.Its two stated aims are: to make themuseum's proposers think long and hard aboutthe responsibilities they are taking onbefore the final decision to set up themuseum is taken; and to point to sources ofadvice and help when it is taken.These objectives are admirably achieved. Thebook is attractively designed, well organisedwith clear headings and adopts a sensible andpractical approach without too much detail,but with suggestions for further reading andwhere to get help. Although intendedprimarily for museums in the AMSSEE area, itis clear that this hook will also be of use(and will be used) by museums in other areasand by professional and established museumsas well as amateurs and new museums. Infact, the main text could he adopted withoutalteration by all Area Councils and anappendix added to take into account regionalvariations.

The text is divided into ten sections:Introduction. Thinkine and Planning. MuseumU.Management, Collecting and Documenting, Theenemies and how to defeat them, Conservation,Displays, Reserve Collections, Exhibitionsand Events, and The Visitor. There are threeappendices: Countywide cooperation in theAMSSEE area, Code of Practice for MuseumAuthorities, and Code of Conduct for MuseumCurators. The latter two are reproduced fromthe Museums Yearbook with the permission ofthe Museums Association.The structure of the text does not follow theusual conventions, but is nevertheless easyto follow. Chapter 5 'The enemies and how todefeat them' covers Fire. Rot, Pests,Humidity, Light, Flood, Air Pollution, TheThief and the Vandal. and Careless handline.Chapter 6 'Conservation' is subdivided into 'Inspecting the collection, Gettingconservation work done, ~ocumentingconservation work, and Recognising problems;it might have been more logical to includePest Control, Light, and Humidity here,leaving Chapter 5 to cover other aspects ofSecurity. As with any publication fornon-specialists it is difficult to get thebalance right and I would question theassumption that the non-specialist would beable to identifv insect oests. Lifehistories of closely related insects are sodifferent that the need for expert helpshould be stressed.This is a general publication and it is notappropriate to make more than passing mentionof the special needs of natural historycollections. Under 'Natural History Records'reference is made to Coopera. (1980) andthe National Scheme for Geological SiteDocumentation, while under 'Conservation'there is a heading 'Fossils, minerals androcks' with references to Howie (1984),Cornish and Doyle (1984) and Brunton & a.(1985). One could not reasonably expect verymuch more, except perhaps for a reference tothe Geological Curators' Group and areference under 'Storage' to the specialneeds of geological collections.Chapter 3 'Museum Management' with itsreferences to the management of charitableorganisations, sources of grants, and taxconcessions is perhaps the most conciseintroduction to the subject which exists andmay well be of direct relevance and use tomany curators of geological collections.The Local Museum can be recommended with--Pconfidence to amateur groups and societies.Some parts of it (particularly prices) willquickly become out of date, so we can lookforward to further updated editions. I amglad to note that errors in the first edition(1984), particularly the specific names ofpest insects, have now been corrected. Thespelling of my name on p.20, however, has not!ReferencesBrunton, C.H. C., Besterman, T.P. andCooper, J.A. 1985. Guidelines for thecuration of geological material. m..&p. geol. Soc. 17, approx. 200pp.Cooper, J.A., Phillips, P.W., Sedman, K.W.and Stanley, M.F. 1980. Geological--Record Centre handbook. MuseumDocumentation Association. Duxford, vii +6 5 ~ ~ .Cornish, L. and Doyle, A. 1984. Use ofethanolamine thioglycollate in theconservation of pyritized fossils.Palaeontology, 27, 421-424.Howie, F.M.P. 1984. Conservation andstorage: geological material,pp.308-318. In Thompson, J.M.A. (ed.).-- Manual of curatorship: a guide to museumpractice. ~utterworths,- on don etc.,(xvi) + 553pp.Geoff StansfieldDepartmemt of Museum StudiesUniversity of LeicesterLeicester LE1 7LG1 July 1986Robinson, E. 1985. London: illustratedgeological -S. Book two. ScottishAcademic Press, Edinburgh and London, vi t142pp. ISBN 7073 0416 4. Price £4.95.This, Eric Robinson's second guide to thebuilding stones of London, is more than apocket guide to be taken around London withyou - it's a good read wherever you are.Besides the expected descriptions of a largevariety of natural stones, roofing slates,paving slabs and cobbles (which make London aliving petrological museum), Dr Robinson hasincluded artificial materials like brick andterra cotta. What makes it such a readablebook is the way he relates the stones to thearchitecture and history of the buildingswhich they grace, emphasising his points withmany apt illustrations.Take for example what he writes about aprominent building not many metres from theGeological Society but not often patronisedby the impecunious geologist - the RitzHotel. 'For several reasons' he savs 'otherthan its unquestioned status as an hotel, TheRitz has considerable reputation.We havealready seen some of the custom-built hotelsin Northumberland Avenue . . . , and canrecognise that between 1880 and 1906 when theRitz was completed, a total revolution hadtaken place in the increased size of floorsand room space but especially in theprovision of ground floor lounges, salons anddining rooms . . . The Ritz was architectdesigned throughout by Mewes and Davis fromits innovatory steel-framed core and itsFrench external detail, through to thedecoration and furnishing of its rooms.Geologically, the rather anonymous grey,axe-dressed granite of the street frontarcading is the same Iddefjord Granite fromOslo Fjord which we have already seen inNorway House in Cockspur Street'.Even nearer to the Geological Society is theNorwich Union Insurance building at the headof St. James's Street, where the author hasunearthed (if that is the right word) threeU. ~fascinating stones of widely differingorigins: Precambrian jasper from the Lleyn

Peninsula, North Wales; Pentelikon marblefrom Greece (keep quiet about this, or theGreeks might want it back for theParthenon! ); and Cretaceous limestones fromSpain containing rudistids, which arethick-shelled bivalves 'showing asring-shapes in creamy white calcite standingout boldly against the dull red background oflime mud'. It is this capacity of DrRobinson - already seen in Book 1 of Londonm - to identify with conviction (ordoubt, as he'll readily admit) all manner ofbuilding stones, locate their source anddescribe them simply but vividly, which makesthis guide so useful and interesting to theamateur and professional geologist alike.Anyone who has tried to do this willappreciate the enormous task Dr Robinson hastaken on - and is doing so effectively.This guide covers the Royal Exchange,Moorgate, The Barbican, Ludgate Circus,Holborn Viaduct, Fleet Street, The Strand,Trafalgar Square (loolc down at the pavingslabs as well as up to Nelson's Column), St.James's. Bloomsbury and St. Pancras (where Ifor one can now enjoy more fully arriving inthe capital). There are five Walks, each setout on clear maps with the describedbuildings numbered to match the text andillustrations, twenty-nine helpfulreferences, a glossary, and indexes of stonenames and the principal buildings referredto. This is a book that everyone should readon the train to London and carry in pocket orhandbag for constant use within the capital,thankful to Eric Robinson for his labour oflove which we can all share.J.H. McD. WhitakerDepartment of GeologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicester LE1 7RH18 August 1986Landscape Models. 1985. Pterosaur a.Landscape Models, 3 Westmoreland Road,Sonthport PR8 6NX. Retail price £l - E1.50(wholesale 60p each, with discount of 10% orfree postage on orders of 100 or more).Hordes of plastic construction kits ofmammoths, dinosaurs and cavemen have sweptthrough model and museum shops and theirproducers have mostly passed into extinctionwithout even the modest memorial of a noticein the Geolo~ical Curator. Now, at last,this journal reviews a model saurian - alifesize card kit of the Jnrassic pterosaurPterodacths from the lithographiclimestone of Solnhofen, whence cameArchaeopteryx.This model is obviously for the museum tosell rather than display. It's a cheap andcheerful beastie aimed, say themanufacturers, at 'educationally aware andsupportive adults who have responsibility forchildren of school age'. We must thereforeask: is the model saleable? Can it be madeup as the instructions claim, using only asmuch skW and experience as may reasonablybe expected? And is the result an adequatereproduction of the original animal?The shop manager will find the modelacceptably priced at normal trade terms. Thepresentation is basic but sufficient: afolded sheet of card and a page ofinstructions and text in a clear plasticenvelope, about A3 size, which has theessential virtue of letting the buyer see thegoods and judge the prospective resultsversus the effort involved. The obviouscomparison is with its ecological rivals inthe shop habitat, 'Birdmobile' colour cardkits of birds. Pterodactylus is good valuein terms of beastie-for-money, twice as bigas birds of the same price, with a wingspanof some 50cm. but it is only printed in brownand black. While pterosaurs presumably hadcolour vision and were often gaudy, by nomeans all need have been brightly coloured(cf. Sordes pilosus Mash, 1983). Or perhapsshe's a nesting female! The old 'Airfix'plastic Pteranodon had to be painted and washalf the size for twice the money (if a lotquicker to assemble).The model maker will find most of the basicinformation on how to assemble card models inthe instructions (but not the old trick ofbrown and black felt-tips to colour theexposed white edges of card). Theinstructions claim, perhaps ratheroptimistically, that 'this model is suitablefor construction by 11 year olds and above orby younger children with supervision', and, Iwould add, adult help where necessary. Somuch depends on the individual's patience andskills. For my part, I took some four hoursto assemble the model, using a slow-dryingglue. A child armed with scissors and 'UHU'could probably cut that time in half.The pterosaurian body beautiful must be themost difficult thing to model in card, withcompound curves everywhere, and one justcannot expect a perfect model to result.What does emerge from the hours with glue,knife and rule is a model whose breakdown isfrankly simple, even crude, compared to thequick and subtle 'Birdmobiles'. Many smallparts and a somewhat laborious constructiongive an alarming arthropodan effect, like thesegmented armour of a Roman legionary; butwhen the model is hung from the ceiling thisdisappears into the general ambience ofscruffy saurian. (I completely ignored theinstructions to slit the back edges of thebody segments to produce 'fur', as beingunsuccessful and irrelevant on such a'stand-off scale' model.)Is the model accurate? Minor subtleties arebeyond the capabilities of the card mediumand the gross outline is all that one canusefully discuss. 'Didi', the BristolDimorphodon (Johnson 1986), was most helpfulon the latest fashions for flying reptiles.Like women's skirts of the 'sixties and'seventies, she says, the pterosaurianhemline (the posterior edge of the wingmembrane) has oscillated in recent years.The current height of fashion, as Didiherself models so charmingly, is theminiskirt, leaving the legs practically free(Cox 1980; Padian 1983).

Those well-known couturiers Dino Frey andJurgen Riess combine the miniskirt and halterneck in their creations: the wing membraneextends forward of the wing finger, held outby a bony strut (Frey and Riess 1983). Butour card model goes for the traditionalmaxiskirt, with the wing membrane extendingdown bat-like around and between the legs.The several hundred words of information andthe welcome list of further reading on theinstruction sheet also tend to go for the'bat-like pterosaur' model. At least one caneasily chop off the excess wing if sominded! The real reason why 1 mention thisis not to criticise the kit, but to point upthe real problems which popular writers havein gaining access to the very latest thinkingin palaeontology. There is less excuse forthe model's omission of eardrums.I justify this review not just by the fruitsof my efforts, and my anticipation ofLandscape Models' promised Quetzalcoatlus(surely not 1:l scale, this! ).Three-dimensional models are valuable sourcesof information and enjoyment, whether amobile hanging from the schoolroom ceiling,or Little Willie happily spending a wetSaturday with the Pterodactvlus kit and DrsBenton, Charig, Halstead and Norman. Theyalso bring much-needed money to the museum.Models are thus subjects for review in thisjournal as much as any 2-D book or poster.At their best, they are good enough to put ondisplay. What we need are more high-quality,accurate models of fossil animals in theflesh and (especially) in skeleton form.Only a large vacuum-formed plastic kit woulddo justice to that thin, oompoundly curvedwing membrane, which could (like the VWBeetle I once saw) be sprayed with glue anddyed flock for that hairy effect. It wouldbe good if someone resurrected one of thevacuum-forming machines sitting in museumbasements!ReferencesCox, C.B. 1980. Trimming the pterosaur'swings. Nature, Lond. 284, 400-402.Frey, E. and Riess, J. 1983. A newreconstruction of the pterosaur wing.-- Neues Jb. -1. Palaont. Abh. 161, 1-21.Johnson. A. 1986. Didi - a model with adifference. Geol. Curator, 4, 289-290.Mash, R. 1983. How to keep dinosaurs.Andre Deutsch. 720~.Padian, K. 1983. A fin'ctional analysisof flying and walking in pterosaurs.Paleobiologv, 9, 218-239.Michael A. TaylorArea Museum Council for the South-West(present address)Leicestershire Museums Service96 New WalkLeicester LE1 6TD26 November 1986An artist's impression of the new British carnivorous dinosaur Barvonyx W, by John Holmes(1986). See 'Notes and News'. Copyright BMCNH).-536-