© Simon Knell, all rights reserved. From Simon Knell, Immortal remains: fossil collections from the heroic age of geology (1820-1850), Ph.D. thesis, University of Keele, UK, 1997.
At the end of 1842, De la Beche wrote to Phillips suggesting major revision and expansion of the Survey’s activities. He proposed the formation of a central directorate to oversee the surveys on both sides of the Irish Sea; currently the Irish Survey was outside his jurisdiction. A key element in these plans concerned the burgeoning science of palaeontology and would mean an expansion in museum and publication. Phillips, who was still enjoying Survey work perhaps more than he had enjoyed anything in his life, saw the opportunities now opening.
…it would be well worth your exertion to obtain the establishment of a good general system of classification, delineation, description and exhibition of British Organized fossils, and quite unworthy of your case to be satisfied with anything less. For these ends we must have one central Depot for every known British species of fossil, observed by the Ordnance Surveyors, & for all such as may be added to their stores by friendly hands, as gifts or exchanges.[1]
At that time the Survey’s collections of 1000 gallons of fossils would occupy more than 1000 square feet of drawer space, were that space available. Phillips urged rapid action in order to exploit that body of subconscious data which had not been translated into any tangible form during the collecting of specimens: ‘the classification may be begun & ought not to be delayed, for memory is now fresh but must grow dull’.[2]The fossils would then need to be drawn, engraved and placed on public exhibition, with a work ‘on Organic Remains’ to follow sometime after. Phillips suggested that if he were given these responsibilities he would happily resign all other engagements – most notably the British Association – provided his income was maintained.
The new initiative was to be built upon renewed vigour in collecting. As Phillips wrote to De la Beche in the following January: ‘I understand our position thus. We collect fossils more copiously, more carefully, more completely for the aid of scientific reasoning, than ever was done before’.[3] It had taken him three days just to complete the figures for one species of brachiopod – Leptaena euglypha – ‘the hinges & muscular impressions of these things are difficult to make out well; & nothing but our abundance of specimens could enable any one to do it’.[4] Such materials from many locations and collections would be harmonised to produce the most perfect work possible: ‘by means of most careful & systematic drawings, applicable as data in the solution of any problems connected with antient life, its nature, affinities, duration, distribution’.[5] Never again would they constrain themselves with inadequate monies and difficult geology, as they had with the work on Devon fossils. The new publication would form a pillar to the new science and a permanent memorial to its writer: ‘I will affirm that for an individual who is honestly desirous to leave, concerning any group of fossils, a perennial volume, this is the plan for him’.[6]
By mid February it seemed that De la Beche’s scheme had succeeded in all its particulars, except for the temporary cancellation of the Survey of Ireland. But they would at least have access to the Irish Palaeozoic fossils, which Henry James numbered, catalogued and packed up – enough for 70 large drawers – for transit to the Survey’s new depot in Scotland Yard, London. Joseph Portlock[7] who had been with the Irish Ordnance Survey since 1824 was about to leave for Corfu and could not be trusted in this task – ‘the spirit of confusion dwells in him, and there abideth’.[8] These fossils were the best that could be extracted from the Ordnance Survey’s museum in Dublin and included all that could be found of those figured by Portlock in his Report on the Geology of the County of Londonderry published this year. These, it turned out, did not all originate from that county but came from all over the country collected by general – i.e. non-geological – ordnance workers. James’s curatorial activities revealed the richness of the resource available to Portlock and the poor use he had made of it.
I thought he was stronger in the fossils; he had a splendid collection to study from, and seven years to clear his ideas, time enough for a clever man, but I fancy his whole attention was taken up into the Trilobites.[9]
His genus Koleoceras was a confused thing ‘I came to the conclusion that the K. Ballii is nothing more than a Pleurotomaria enveloped in a Zoophite’. The other species were equally unreliable. James asked Phillips what should be done about the error. Phillips was of the opinion that as no-one else held specimens of the genus they should simply forget the matter; better that than expose themselves to ridicule.[10] Members of the Irish geological community were less critical of Portlock, the blame for his failings, they felt, should really fall upon his British superiors.
Perhaps the biggest loss caused by the hiatus in the Irish survey would be that of valued workers such as Flanagan, a native employed on 4s 6d per day, who had become a proficient fossil collector but who would not be available to join the Survey in England.
A museum of scientific geology
Despite earlier objections to museum work – ‘not however at all in the way of the Curatorship of a Museum which my health positively forbids’[11]– by mid February 1843, Phillips was planning to spend two months in London arranging the Survey collections as a prelude to their possible publication. The attraction of heading the compilation of a new definitive series on British fossils was sufficient to forego his earlier objections to curatorial work. He would mitigate these problems by walking into London from a nearby village – so he could at least maintain the exercise he felt was essential to his health.[12]
Accommodation had been found for the Survey’s fossils in a suite of lowly dwellings in Scotland Yard, just off Whitehall, the ‘situation has a philosophic dullness as well as calmness, but the houses appear so well suited for the Museum Occupants’, Phillips assured De la Beche.[13] The new store room would be near the Museum of Economic Geology – De la Beche’s other interest in the area but one then under the governance of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, as opposed to the Ordnance Survey. This was the heart of British geology close to King’s College, and the Geological and Royal Societies.[14]
In the previous two decades De la Beche seems to have been reasonably satisfied with the repositories then supporting the developing science. In 1835 he had recommended that the products of his survey of Cornwall and Devon be split in two: those derived from mineral resources were to be placed in a new Museum of Economic Geology; those specimens ‘illustrative of the Geology of Great Britain’, which were largely fossils, were to be sent to the Geological Society ‘as being that most advantageous to it’.[15] He also, however, felt the need for the establishment of a national collection of fossils: ‘Those I now send are destined for the British Museum, where all ought to labour to get up a good collection of British fossils – our national museum is sadly wanting in this respect’.[16] As De la Beche became increasingly assured of government support for his vision of the Survey so his museum ambitions grew, supported by Phillips’ desire to head a new national investigation of palaeontology. As De la Beche had told Phillips in 1840,
There is a want of a national establishment for scientific geology or geology proper. The British Museum does not afford it – neither does the Geological Society nor any other establishment in London where such a collection should be.[17]
Both men had formerly supported the provincial museum movement but these would never serve modern purposes: ‘not to Provincial Institutions!! to be scattered like dust’.[18] The British Museum had long been accused of deplorable collection care, and disorganised and uninterpreted exhibits.[19] The British Association, at its meeting in Birmingham, in 1839, petitioned the Museum ‘to have the shells in that institution so arranged as to facilitate comparison of the actually existing shells, with fossil remains and impressions in rocks’.[20] The Geological Society, whilst central to geological research did not offer the resources necessary to deal with vast quantities of material, and indeed found its museum an increasing encumbrance which it would ultimately give up to the Survey.[21]
The Survey’s museum would not only be comprehensive in its coverage of fossils but also contain a high level of interpretation, and include amongst its exhibits maps and sections which were in themselves new to science. Phillips was keen to see De la Beche complete a North-South section through Wales; ‘Depend on it this would be a noble thing, fit to draw on a huge scale & hang up as a specimen’.[22] Specimens were to be cemented onto board or arranged in trays and placed in cabinets of, eventually glazed, drawers.[23] A three or four foot glass case could later be mounted on top of these for the purposes of display.
In the first instance, however, the main aim of the collection would be to aid the interpretation of fossils returning from their planned assault on Wales: ‘the collections we have got must certainly be used to interpret those we are to get, so that an arrangement thereof is most desirable, & even a sine qua non’.[24] The practical needs of space alone warranted ‘the classification of the treasures we have collected, lest some other Son of the Hammer in some other geological age cast it in our teeth that we collected but did not select, nor dispose’.[25]
Masters of fossil collecting
Phillips planned to go to London to start work on the collections in April but taking advantage of the speed of railway travel first shot down to the Malverns to complete his work there.[26]He had just a few of the most difficult localities to sort out but he planned to be out of the region in no time. However, the visit turned up some exciting finds. ‘A bumper toast to Palaeontology!’, he wrote to De la Beche, ‘I have found! Dug out & obtained! Fossils! Trilobites! From the lowest shales of Malvern below the fossiliferous beds commonly known at Malvern, & below all of May hill & Woolhope’.[27] These were tiny fossils easily overlooked. If nothing else it demonstrated the rigour with which Phillips, and Ramsay in particular, approached their task, but also how the Survey’s fossil collectors were constrained in their search by the instructions of their superiors. ‘It is a good point to shew the difference of our work & that of other persons of less leisure, though not less anxiety to gather these very things’.[28] He rushed off an account of the discovery to Philosophical Magazine, immediately.[29]
At the end of the month Phillips turned southwards towards Tortworth and Gloucestershire where he joined Ramsay and Bristow. As they moved from Palaeozoic into Oolitic and Liassic strata, Phillips questioned the need to continue collecting in the same manner: ‘several years of our search in quarries not so favorable as those near Bath & Bradford, won’t give us a Collection half as good as Pearce’s, Walton’s, Pratt’s or Jelly’s at Bath, to say nothing at Bristol’.[30] While there was no suggestion that these collections should be obtained there also seemed little point in duplication. He proposed that the Survey cease its ‘fossil days’ whilst in the area, and simply annotate those seen in sections.
However, if his own collecting prowess had earlier surprised him, Phillips was even more surprised by that of Richard Gibbs who proved that he could even out-collect the seasoned locals – ‘we are getting more fossils by one Gibbs than by any other given means or man, except my very dear old friend & fellow rain-scorner, James’.[31] Gibbs was a natural collector and fossil preparator and, keen to better himself, was now reading Lyell and De la Beche. Phillips was impressed and asked De la Beche to increase his wage from 2s 6d to 3s. ‘Could you see Gibbs cleaning our fossils you would highly approve his skill & patience… the man is wonderfully good at the business’.[32] Gibbs would continue to be nurtured by Phillips and De la Beche, throughout his time with the Survey. His lowly station is all too apparent from the way in which he is addressed by De la Beche, who patronises him as if he were a child. He also gave him simple instructions to direct his collecting – ‘Pay particular attention to the fossils, and see how far your present district may resemble Builth’ – with no real indication of what might be derived from such collecting or why the two areas might have the same fauna.[33]
Phillips had supposed that this well-worked area, one in which he had grown up, would be rapidly dispensed with. However, the delay in receiving the report of the somewhat unco-operative Sanders caused De la Beche to wonder if this work would need to be re-done by Williams. Phillips feared that the delay this would cause would ‘lose forever the grande reconnaissance of Wales, which if not done this year, will be too late the next, & the O.G.S. loses the only remaining Crown which English [sic] Geology can offer’.[34] In August, however, Sanders’ report was delivered but he continued to have disagreements with Williams where their lines overlapped. These were not the only Survey members to come into dispute, as De la Beche found when he came to bring together the results of the different surveys the following year. This revealed that Ramsay and Phillips also had different interpretations of the geology around Box in certain key areas. The Survey might congratulate itself on its rigour but there remained questions about its consistency.
Phillips’ dream becomes a nightmare
In July, Phillips moved to London to begin work organising the collections. Around this time a hint of uncertainty concerning Phillips’ future with the Survey pervades his correspondence and he reassures De la Beche of his commitment and his desire to take on responsibility for palaeontology.[35]
Phillips spent the following month in Cork at the British Association meeting, as well as taking time to see the Irish palaeozoics and Bala in Wales, before returning to assist the survey around Bath. He planned to resume work on the collections in London in the following April or during the winter. Ireland also seemed to be creeping back into the Survey’s view. But asked by the Commissioners what his special title was, Phillips was embarrassed to tell them that he would be found listed under the Survey’s Geological Assistants. He found himself in a position of uncertainty; he now had only three months fossil work remaining and if he was going to continue with the Survey he would want to be given charge of Palaeontology.[36] He had to plan for 1844 and saw a return to lecturing as a possibility, and indeed at the beginning of that year Phillips wrote to inform De la Beche that he had been appointed Professor of Geology and Mineralogy at the University of Dublin. These duties would, however, still leave Phillips with 8 months to devote to the Survey.[37] De la Beche suggested Phillips use this time in a survey of Yorkshire and neighbouring districts – something he was happy to undertake – but he still hoped to be offered palaeontological control or the Irish Survey.[38]
Early in February Phillips sowed the seeds of an appointment which would forever remove control of palaeontology from him. In a letter to De la Beche he recommended that Professor Edward Forbes take over his duties with regard to the collections in London. ‘Let him receive, arrange, & catalogue for the use of the Survey & the inspection of the public, the specimens which may be forwarded by the working parties; let him respond to their cry for natural history knowledge, though it be a cry from a distance’.[39] He probably saw this as a way to avoid museum work; he certainly did not believe he was giving up his chances of superintending the Survey’s palaeontological activities, but perhaps suddenly realised that his letter might be interpreted in this way. He wrote the next day to protect his palaeontological interests. He wished to retain control of palaeontological fieldwork or ‘distributive palaeontology’. ‘The laws of distribution are not to be elicited in a cabinet & should be done by the Director or Lieutenants according to districts’.[40] He suggested that responsibility for the Survey’s publications should be managed as follows:
Geology peritive – (Geologist)
economic – (Chemist & Geologist)
Palaeontology descriptive – (Naturalist)
distributive – (Geologist)[41]
Phillips was also asked to consider how he would command the Irish Survey should it be placed in his charge.[42] His duties at Trinity College only required the presentation of 36 lectures each year; he told De la Beche he could serve the Irish Survey virtually full-time. The Chair alone could not hope to fulfil either his financial or scientific ambitions. However, in May, De la Beche wrote conveying doubts that an Irish Professor would have the time or conviction to take on the direction of the Irish Survey. Phillips could not understand this – his position would strengthen the Survey.[43] He intended to fight this battle whilst still holding hopes of heading ‘the Palaeontology of the British Isles’. But it was then suggested that this too could only be run from England. He could see that if his present occupation prevented his involvement in the Irish Survey it would probably also prevent his appointment on the English staff directing Yorkshire operations.
This spurred Phillips to prove that he was not isolated from the rest of British geology by being in Dublin and he hopped back to Worcestershire for some more fieldwork. His anxiety, however, began to mount, he wrote forcefully to De la Beche:
I have no fear of any injustice being intended me, on either of the two questions now remaining in which my assistance can be required, the Irish Field Survey, or the Palaeontology of the British Isles. For neither of these, in my opinion, does the Professorship in the University of Dublin disqualify me, either by lack of time or by excess of occupation; & I hold myself fully at liberty to accept an appointment to either of these subjects, should it please the Higher Powers, & should I be so minded. To say that the Palaeontology of these Isles can only be directed from London is a new & I think false doctrine; but it is certain that in London, in Dublin, in Edinburgh, there must be special Museums & special Conservators. The combination of these specialities is not a function of locality, but of personal qualifications & a general plan. This was your opinion at Frome, & it is consistent with the fact that the Fishes of the British Isles have been referred to Agassiz at Neuchatel & the Plants of the British Isles described by Brongniart at Paris. I write all this in a peritive shape, because the time is come for action, & you must have no doubt of my views on the points which may so seriously involve my own prospects.[44]
On the 8 June, Phillips made his final plea for the Irish survey. Should he fail in this and fail to find a position on the English Survey, he would completely withdraw and they could expect no co-operation from him:
Recollect the Sands were rapidly flowing which will mark my separation from the O.G.G.B.S. & consider what is the last service I can best render you. What is to be done with my Cambrian, Silurian & Oolite Notes? These I can not redigere[45] while at work in the field, nor after the said Sands have ceased to run, for then I enter on a map of private undertaking, & forget the external world utterly! or else the Irish affairs will engulph me![46]
By the 19 June Phillips had his answer. The Irish Survey was to continue in postponement. And Phillips no longer felt attracted to the prospect of producing the new palaeontological memoirs:
I don’t much like the notion of shutting myself in London, for a quarter of a year to originate, with excessive trouble & disadvantage, a work which can never now be prosecuted with any further reference to myself. Nor is the state of the only half exhibited collection in the Museum, such as to render it possible to do justice to such a serious effort. Besides this, there are country collections to be inspected, & all to be done on a plan requiring years to accomplish & of which the first step must be well taken. The drawings made, the catalogues begun, the collections classed & the method introduced will guide my successor, to whom I wish every thing kind & prosperous, as well as to the whole Survey.[47]
Phillips would be as useful as possible in the remaining months and would cease employment with the Survey on 30 September 1844. He continued to assist the English survey, working on the Abberley extension of his Malvern work and seemed resigned to his lot. He tried to quell any resentment but the bitterness grew. De la Beche tried to reassure him but Phillips was too dejected. He refused to go to London to instruct Forbes;
the consideration of what I have done since April 1841, has convinced me of the necessity of looking very carefully to the duties which may be expected of me, & the powers entrusted to me, before again pledging time, labour, & thought, in the public service.[48]
De la Beche could relieve none of Phillips’ concerns, except that regarding the Malvern’s monograph which was to proceed. He had, however, included Phillips in his proposals for the future of the Survey and did all he could to reassure him. De la Beche was operating in the public interest and putting aside personal feelings. His words of comfort at least made Phillips more amenable to a meeting with Forbes as soon as the latter was appointed,[49] although his apparent ease with the position was again short-lived.
News of the Board of Ordnance’s deliberations reached Phillips in late July.[50] The Board’s letter clearly stated that Phillips’ Dublin professorship precluded his continuance as palaeontological superintendent of the Survey. These duties would now fall to Edward Forbes. Whilst Forbes desired an Edinburgh professorship he was happy, for now, with the ‘palaeontologist thing’,[51] though he was still committed to contemporary zoology and needed to complete his work on the Aegean and his Lycian collection. Once again Phillips was distraught. It was De la Beche who advised Phillips to take the Dublin post suggesting that it would not interfere with Phillips’ Survey role. Now Phillips was expected to finish everything by the end of September.
His report, he suggested would be published by private means if public funds did not materialise; it would be pointless simply handing over his material for others to work up. He demanded more time. De la Beche replied that Phillips could have such time until his Dublin post began; he remained committed to seeing Phillips as the Irish Survey representative: ‘You ought to be in charge of the Irish Survey – it does strike me most forcibly that that is the real honest useful public thing to do’.[52]
For nine months, Forbes had been on tenterhooks, unable to resign his other commitments or be sure that the Survey post would become available. Much of the delay had been due to Phillips’ indecision. Forbes, resigned from the Geological Society and took up his duties on 1 November 1844. The Society tried with all its power to keep his affiliation but he understood the disputed nature of British geology too well and asserted the need to be independent of outside influences.[53] Probably to Phillips’ great dismay he retained his Professorship at Kings College, London.[54]
The Irish question was also resolved shortly afterwards. Captain Henry James was appointed to the Directorship under direct control of Colonel Colby. This was a bitter blow to De la Beche, who had been trying to get the Irish Survey under his wing since 1842, but even more so to Phillips. As to James, Phillips had remarked years earlier that he would make an admirable director of the Irish Survey; he was well liked by the Survey men. It was also suggested that the palaeontological work in Ireland be placed in the hands of Forbes.[55]
Phillips wanted nothing now to do with the Irish Survey and had cautioned Colby regarding the project, particularly with regard to palaeontology.[56] The crown of British palaeontology which was so nearly in Phillips’ hands had fallen instead on the head of the young pretender. Phillips’ ‘sulk state’ of non-co-operation caused Forbes great anxiety and anger. How could he proceed to edit the new work when one half of the volume he was to publish was not in uniformity with the other? Forbes had no wish to follow the plans Phillips had laid for the volume on Organic Remains. ‘Between ourselves’, he wrote to De la Beche, angrily, ‘Phillips’ descriptions of organic remains hitherto published are notoriously defective… among naturalists it is painful to hear the comments made upon them’.[57] But perhaps Phillips was aware of these comments: ‘let him respond to their [i.e. fossils] cry for natural history knowledge’.[58]
Phillips stayed on beyond the September deadline but only to complete generalised notes on the palaeontology of the districts covered in recent years. He could, however, give no zoological descriptions as that task now fell to Forbes who had yet to decide on the format of the work. Phillips’ only avenue of palaeontological expression would now lie in the in-depth investigation of a single fossil group, something he had long contemplated.
A new regime
On 17 December 1844, the Geological Survey of Great Britain was separated from the military and placed under the control of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests who already oversaw De la Beche’s Museum of Economic Geology.[59] In the following March, Phillips resigned his Dublin professorship, despite the College offering to double his salary. He returned to England to direct the survey of Yorkshire and the North where his local knowledge and rich network of contacts could be exploited. He would also complete his memoir on the Malverns.[60] His York home would become an office and was fitted out accordingly with cabinets.
Early in April, Phillips examined the ‘queer’ geology of May Hill[61] and Abberley – the last remaining tract to be covered in the Malvern monograph. As the year progressed he became increasingly satisfied with his return to the fold. De la Beche was once again the supportive colleague and master, the Malvern volume was making rapid progress and the survey of the north of England was largely a matter of retreading old and familiar ground. Phillips was now doing what he liked best: descriptive regional geology and distributive palaeontology; he no longer resented Forbes and indeed succumbed to his zoological influences: ‘He is almost the only Naturalist of genius, that I foregather with now-a-days, & I like his spirit of combination’.[62]
De la Beche’s revision of Survey activities at the end of 1842 had led to a refinement in method. Then, the field teams had been small and those undertaking the intellectual interpretation of the strata limited to Phillips, Ramsay and the Director himself. In May 1845, with the Irish Survey at last under his wing, De la Beche felt increasingly distanced from his teams who were now largely under the control of the local directors and had changing workforces. To ensure consistency he issued written guidance for the operation of the Survey: ‘Instructions for the Local Directors of the Geological Surveys of Great Britain and Ireland’.[63] These encapsulated what had been learnt from the Devon and South Wales surveys and moved the Survey’s field practice even further from the Baconian inductivism so beloved of Sedgwick and others. Now workers were to apply their geological knowledge in the field. Phillips had long used his stratigraphic knowledge to determine his field behaviour; these new instructions, however, would take this much further. Rather than collectors of facts, which these fossils and rock specimens represented, fieldworkers were to analyse, understand and interpret these objects even before recording or removal took place. Of particular interest here is how these directions affected the collecting and accumulation of fossils.
In these instructions, sedimentary rocks were not to be transferred into maps and sections without an understanding of depositional conditions.
The mere grouping together of a number of beds, collectively known by a particular name, finding the boundaries of the mass, and inserting these on the maps and sections is insufficient in the present state of Geology.
The viewpoint of the observer was to be projected back in time to that in which deposition took place. This was De la Beche’s personal viewpoint on geology. A slate was an ancient clay, its fossils were its living, breathing, fauna and indeed the peculiarities of the two were inextricably linked. A restricted fauna may represent the limitations of an environment and not the true period of existence of a fossil, an important consideration in cross-country correlation.
In such rocks as are fossiliferous it is most desirable that the manner in which organic remains occur, as respects the planes of the beds, and their distribution over considerable areas, should be carefully studied and those collecting specimens should be instructed not only to obtain the fossils which may be found perfect, but also every kind of organic remain which may be discovered, noting the abundance or scarcity of the different kinds.
The dominance of successional or temporal considerations in geology, was to be replaced by total spatial awareness. This perspective would not simply further the understanding of former worlds but enable the isolation of the most useful stratigraphic indices. Their primary duty was, after all, the production of maps and sections.
The data so gathered would also allow the Survey’s natural history oriented palaeontologist to apply his own peculiar knowledge of modern seas in the interpretation of the past. He could no longer visit every site to direct operations and as a result needed to rely upon the rigour and effort of the fieldworker to a much greater extent. In some respects this was a return to the days of using amateur collections, when palaeontological expertise was exploited away from the field and was dependent upon what the data collectors chose to send. This was a collecting model which Phillips had found to be deeply flawed. Secord[64] refers to the hierarchy of knowledge inherent in the contemporary structure of society but which was also adopted by the Survey, from its lowly collectors to its gentleman director. However, the Survey made attempts to break down these sharp educational divisions, even if the etiquette of social rank was preserved. The collectors were, by the Survey’s process of nurturing, now likely to be highly informed:
The distribution of life at different times over the British area from that early geological period where we suppose such life to have first appeared upon it, up to the present time, is a study and a duty more peculiarly devolving on the Palaeontologist to the Survey, but as it is a knowledge highly essential to the philosophical views which should characterise the advance of the Geological Survey, it is extremely desirable that it should be instilled by the Local Directors into those who are under their charge. Frequent intercourse, therefore, is desirable between the Local Directors and the Palaeontologist on points which bear this subject and between the former, and the Geologists and Assistant Geologists employed on the Survey, to whom such knowledge is important for the right progress of their work.
De la Beche’s interest in palaeoenvironments and palaeoecology perhaps showed a more complex understanding of the dynamic processes involved in producing the three dimensional association of rocks seen in the field. His perspective, however, was not unique. He had surrounded himself with men who shared these views; indeed Forbes embodied this environmental approach perfectly. The Survey’s palaeontologist had spent the summer of 1843 making drawings of every kind of track created by marine animals, in the expectation of finding them useful in geological investigations. He found the trails to be specific to genera and even species.[65] Trace fossils, such as the Stourton Hill footprints, were of widespread interest at this time. Phillips’ Yorkshire work also showed his interest in contemporary environmental processes, though this was greatly strengthened under the influence of De la Beche and later Forbes. Conybeare, Buckland, Dillwyn and many others also demonstrated these interests; De la Beche was largely reflecting the mood of the time. Should we be surprised by this approach? Geology was infused with a belief in uniformitarianism, which complemented the contemporary belief that palaeontology was a zoological rather than geological discipline. The link Lyell and Deshayes’ work made between past and present faunas also emphasised fossils as zoological phenomena. Equally, an expansion of comparative anatomy into the realm of ethological inference, appears logical; the itinerant lecturers of the 1820s often talked of fossils in terms of their ‘natural history’. In 1835 Phillips’ ideas on a definitive fossil volume included discussion of ‘their dependence on physical conditions, & the legitimate inferences from the facts known concerning them’. Life was continuous, Forbes’ dredging and fossil collecting activities were complementary: ‘We have knocked 2 more species off the British fossil list, finding them existing’.[66]
Individual perspectives
Despite De la Beche’s instructions, the Survey would reflect the individual skills, knowledge and perspective of local directors and their staff. Henry James, for example, appears to have harboured a wish to see the Irish Survey regain some of its autonomy, not least in terms of its fossil collections. The best Irish fossils – those collected under Portlock – were in London; all he had to identify his finds were drawings of them:
…let Salter examine the English collections, McCoy the Irish; they will differ most horribly of course and we shall have a storm in a tub about it, but let Forbes with the two collections before him – give the decision as to the name & c. which is to be adopted as that of the Survey of the United Kingdom.[67]
He suggested the collection of duplicate sets on both sides of the Irish sea so that they could be exchanged for the purposes of identification.[68] Frederick McCoy[69] had been taken on as an Assistant in 1845, with instructions that he was to work in the field and not as a ‘fossilist’. On a six month probationary contract, working 6 days per week for ten shillings a day, he also had to give up the right to publish in his own name or collect for himself.[70] McCoy, however, became a key member of James’ team and soon took on the palaeontological duties he desired, nurtured by James’ guidance and instruction:
…this is the third time McCoy has drawn this section – and you will see that it is confoundedly stiff still, but I know that we are saving time in perfectly instructing our people before they are turned adrift by themselves; if Wyley had had six months instruction he would have done more work in a month than he can now in six.[71]
Meanwhile, Ramsay’s team was investigating North Wales, reaching for that last crown of ‘English’ geology. The work was productive particularly in terms of collecting fossils: ‘That boy William[72] is a very devil for finding fossils. He has been getting such quantities since I was here, but they are for ever lingulas, lingulas, lingulas’[73].The policy of unrestricted collecting ensured that such local perspectives would not cloud judgement of what was important. As Phillips remarked on seeing these fossils, ‘Ramsay has sent me the Lingula. It is not the species once shewn me from Tremadoc, but I always doubted that. This is like a Llandilo one’.[74]
When at Bala later in the year, Ramsay worked to extend the level of stratigraphic control over fossil collecting. Here he traced fossiliferous bands extensively over the surrounding landscape ‘like contour lines’.[75] This revealed that the fossil collecting teams had been determining the positions of their finds wrongly. Now Ramsay could give them maps with each fossiliferous bed delineated and numbered. The survey was making good progress and under Forbes’ supervision the palaeontological work was set to establish new standards: ‘He is doing splendid work writing, drawing, making out species & lists in a way that has never been done for any part of the country before’.
Forbes’ position at the centre of the Survey’s fossil collections gave him a unique perspective on British palaeontology. Discoveries in one part of Britain could, through Forbes, direct collecting elsewhere. Indeed, it was Forbes’ role to find such links. His experiences at Bala allowed him to interpret the Irish collections in a new light; fragmentary fossils from the Irish Courtdown Limestone indicated an age contemporary with the Rhiwlas Limestone in Wales.[76] He had Flanagan sent out immediately to collect more specimens to prove the point. Forbes also found similarities in the starfish fauna.
However, Forbes like Phillips, was a field man. Both knew the limitations of collections – these alone could not fulfil the needs of publication, he had to get out of the Museum. His field objectives would be identical to those which drove Phillips into Devon at the beginning of the decade. Thus Forbes undertook fieldwork to discover the ‘relative abundance, state, associations & fragmentary condition of the fossils on the spot’ of the Irish Silurian fossils.[77] In the case of the Cystoid Pentremites, for example, fieldwork would give him an insight into its anatomy as he found a limestone full of weathered specimens – ‘just such specimens as collectors reject’. Forbes, who had a particular interest in groups generally poorly represented in the fossil record, wished to take in all possible sources of material and asked that Salter draw up reports on known private collections of Silurian fossils for future use.[78] In 1848 he would at last lay the Kildare and Bala collections side by side to reveal their ‘synchronism’.[79]
The new rigour would extend fossil lists even in areas once favoured by numerous gentlemen geologists. Forbes would quadruple the list of Purbeck fossils.[80] Ramsay later worked the same area, and brought in Richard Gibbs to gather material for the Museum and to instruct the failing Gapper[81] ‘& astonish him’.
I want under my own eye to have a full set of Museum rock specimens marine and freshwater with all their modes of accumulation &c. &c. &c. A glorious set can & must be made here – Also to get a full & perfect set of the fossils worked systematically and numbered bed by bed.[82]
Malvernia
Following publication of Palaeozoic Fossils in June 1841, Phillips and De la Beche discussed how they should cover the fossil fauna revealed during the survey of South Wales. Phillips was now against continuing the policy of figuring all recorded species, as 350 Silurian fossils and 430 Mountain Limestone fossils had already been figured and he doubted that many of these could be surpassed. A good number of these had been published by Phillips himself in the second of his Yorkshire monographs, and doubtless he would not wish to undermine its importance.[83] Plans for the volume, however, were delayed due to funding uncertainties, and a desire to create a truly complete record of the fauna; the Devon volume had been published rather hurriedly and numerous new fossils had come to light as it went to press.[84]
Despite the lack of a publication deadline, Phillips began work on the figures of new Pembrokeshire fossils in the following winter, showing as much structural detail as possible and restricting these to one species per page. This would give greatest possible flexibility in the final arrangement, and allow for changes in nomenclature and later finds. Once again progress was slow not due to conflicting calls on his time but to want of assistance; he could find no artist capable of figuring the material to his satisfaction other than himself.
It was not until April 1846 that the first Memoir of the Geological Survey of Great Britain was published.[85] Here, De la Beche gave a long account integrating the products of the Survey’s work to date, from the same perspective which he had encouraged his local directors to adopt a year earlier. Rocks were described as evidence of dynamic processes, the products of contemporary submarine and fluviatile processes. Black Shales became black muds infused with the carbon of decayed plants, the fossils they contained were not simply stratigraphic markers or taxonomic units, but ‘inhabitants’ of this former environment. They allowed the extrapolation of detailed habitat, such as animals dwelling in the cavities of Ann Phillips’ Malvern conglomerate,[86] and included elements unrecorded in the rock record – cliffs, breakers and seaweeds. De la Beche could draw on the idea of animal populations diffusing from a centre of geographical distribution, which Phillips expressed in his Devon volume, and superimpose this on his palaeoenvironmental model.[87]
Phillips began work on his Malverns volume in March 1846. John Salter,[88] who had recently been working in North Wales with Sedgwick, joined the Survey at this time and was appointed to be Phillips’ correspondent on palaeontological matters. He would work on Phillips’ fossil lists adding localities which Phillips had not seen and updating his nomenclature. Salter, with Forbes and De la Beche, would also proof read the final script to ensure it was accurate; the tentative species of Palaeozoic Fossils would have no place in this new work. By November the first part of the work was complete and Phillips began work on fossil distribution. In the following month he agreed to amalgamate all the new species which had been recently determined including those of Forbes and Salter. Whilst Salter’s constant questioning of what he saw as dubious species proved essential to the success of the final work it also began to drive Phillips ‘mad’; if he ever did another fossil catalogue it would be on the safer territory of the Mountain Limestone and he would do it alone.[89] He did, however, greatly appreciate the young Salter’s meticulous work.
Phillips’ The Malvern hills compared with the Palaeozoic districts of Abberley, Woolhope, May Hill, Tortworth and Usk published in 1848 marked a return to form – an echo of his Yorkshire treatises where geology rather than palaeozoology held sway. The fossil collecting it represented had not been motivated simply by the need to reveal new species or well-preserved specimens; the approach was neither that of the palaeozoologist nor the museum curator. It aimed to acquire examples of all the species from all the strata from as many localities as possible for the purposes of numerical estimates and comparative tables of the distribution of life in the ancient sea.[90] A perspective not simply reflecting his own and his master’s biases but also coloured by what he had learnt from Forbes:
In consequence of… the exposure at points so distant as Malvern and Marloes, of Silurian strata which were formed in the same oceanic basin, we are able to survey the distribution of organic life in several successive Palaeozoic aeras, with as much certainty and completeness as can now be attained by the most persevering dredging operations for one surface and one epoch of modern life.[91]
As fossils were collected the details of their discovery had been recorded in a journal and they had been viewed en masse at local stations in Tenby, Dale, Haverfordwest, St Clears, Llandeilo, Llandovery, Usk and Malvern. However, it had been impossible for Phillips to totally re-examine the collections – they were now too vast, and indeed largely inaccessible. This volume would be based on the analysis of 200 drawers.
Phillips’ exploited many of the same facts used by De la Beche in the first Memoir but the difference in style is striking. Phillips’ ‘Malvernia’, as he called it, reveals the development of a new professional style embodying the scientific rigour of Forbes in the fossil descriptions and Phillips’ own systematic geological perspective. In contrast De la Beche’s prose was that of the eloquent storyteller which owed much to earlier romantic philosophy and the previous geological age. That is not to suggest that he lacked scientific rigour (though perhaps the rigour he enforced upon his workers did not derive entirely from himself but equally from his lieutenants – Ramsay, Phillips and Forbes), but that conjecture and imagination were key to his powers of communication. His was a very readable argument infused with images of the past and was unlike most geological treatises. If De la Beche saw rocks as muddy rivers and seas, Phillips viewed the same rocks from the present – they remained rocks. Whilst he could appreciate contemporary processes he was steeped in the traditions of geology built on stratigraphy and commercial exploitation. He recounts facts in clear and elegant prose, without a hint of romanticism. This was not a model for the more limited, dry and factual descriptive sheet memoirs developed by the Survey later in the century but one for descriptive texts in geology well into the 1960s.[92]
In a general comparison of the districts under consideration the identity and mode of occurrence of fossils provided key stratigraphic indices. Phillips used whole faunas to make his point where this allowed, but the ‘banded’ nature of occurrence of individual species or families was from Survey work elsewhere known to be universally characteristic of Palaeozoic rocks in Britain.[93] Mineralogy, stratigraphy, and palaeontology all supported the view that these were the deposits of the same subsiding ocean basin.
A comparison of fossils in each of the districts was used to support four distinct research projects, some of which were influenced by contemporary discoveries in the biological realm:
‘Systems of co-existent life’ – ‘Palaeontology and biology thus become inseparably united as parts of one great science’.[94] Its aim was to understand or make inferences regarding the biology of fossil animals from a knowledge of their affinity to modern species. All the classes of animal (Cephalopoda, Heteropoda, etc) existing in Silurian times also exist today.
Geographical extent of life and the centres from which they spread. Modern species were known to have originated in one location. In geological terms this could mean that the presence of a species in rocks at the centre of its distribution would be older that those at the periphery. Fossils of this species would be expected to be more numerous and in more layers at the centre and currents which aided dispersion would create wedge-shaped distributions thicker at this centre. Those littoral life forms which dispersed themselves as ‘germs’ would be more contemporaneous over large areas than pelagic forms which dispersed by swimming. These ideas were to be tested using 13 localities.[95]
Temporal or stratigraphic range of life – an investigation of the traditional function of fossils.
Species adaptation to ‘peculiar conditions’ such as demonstrated by Darwin, amongst others, in a recent discourse on coral reefs which might be used to determine periods of subsidence and elevation of the seafloor.
Tables were constructed indicating how geographically widespread a species was and how abundant in each district, as well as the faunal richness of each district. They tended to show, though there are many exceptions, that those species which have the greatest geological range were also the most widespread. This Phillips saw as evidence of the natural transference of germs of life by sea currents. It may equally, however, simply be an artifice of the fossil record. As Phillips remarks: ‘no district yet discovered exhibits all the Silurian formations in full development’.[96] In these circumstances, probability suggests that those fossils with greatest geological range are most likely to occur in the greatest number of sites.
Phillips’ tables attempt to make sense of variation for it was variation in form, distribution, lithology and so on which he recorded. Yet despite a grand summary of the richest locality, or class of fossils, the tables were not reliable. Phillips was aware of the peculiarities of each species:
Neither its geological duration nor its geographical distribution can be deduced from any general law affecting all the species of the class, order, group or family, or the geological assemblage to which it belongs; each species has, in fact, its own law, because the organic constitution of each stood in a definite and peculiar relation to the conditions in which it was placed.[97]
It is surprising, and perhaps a reflection of contemporary interest in numerate methods, that Phillips should expect meaningful results. His hypotheses, were often shaky, but his analysis was no better. He was aware of the peculiarities of the physical conditions which might determine species presence, and also of the vagaries of preservation and collecting,[98] and yet was willing to dismiss this in order to support ideas on dispersion. This reflected an optimistic belief in the record preserved in the rocks. In more general terms, however, the tables did allow Phillips to make very useful inferences about the nature of life in Silurian times, its complexion and succession. He called for the collecting of Palaeozoic fossils on a national scale if a solution to questions of species centres and dispersion were to be resolved.
The role of the collector was again not forgotten, even though private collections no longer featured as an important means of geological advance under Survey methods: ‘By turning to the west, and descending the road towards Brockhill, the collector may add to this list Fucoids…’.[99] Phillips’ tables showed the stratigraphic and geographical range of species which set challenges for collectors. They also told collectors where and how easily species could be found. Phillips occasionally indicated variations in the completeness of specimens; the trilobite Dalmannia caudata, for example, occurred as hundreds of separate heads and tails, and never complete, in the limestone of Malvern. This might stimulate a search to find the exception but would perhaps encourage the cabinet collector to go to Llandeilo where numerous species could be found in their entirety. A comprehensive list of localities was given to aid the collector’s search.
A fossil decade
The want of a clarification of fossil nomenclature during the 1830s would be addressed in the 1840s in a number of projects which aimed at the revision, illustration and description of fossil species. A full review is beyond the scope of this chapter but the attempts of the Geological Survey to fill this niche deserve mention. De la Beche’s revision of the Survey at the end of 1842 included plans for a comprehensive series of publications on fossils, a scheme supported Phillips who provided sketches and drawings of how these might be arranged.[100] Knowing that government bureaucrats would canvass prominent geologists for their opinions, De la Beche discussed his plans with his colleagues before submitting them for approval. McCulloch and Murchison were surprisingly positive but Buckland vigorously attacked the idea as ‘gigantesque, extravagant, or unconnected’ with the function of the Survey.[101] Buckland, it was suggested, had misunderstood their intentions.
Work began on a selection of engravings in March 1843, with some specimens being sent directly to the engraver so that he could gain an understanding of the texture required. The engraver also developed a new style so as to avoid confusion between shading and structural lines.[102]The new work would raise the level of detail given in the description of species, each would now be supported by numerous figures and magnified views.[103] ‘It is evident that we can produce works such as may be entirely sufficient for the want of the age, and there seems at present every motive to induce us to urge the system forward’.[104]
With the replacement of Phillips by Forbes, however, plans for the series were revised. Forbes had his own ideas and was no supporter of the flimsy descriptions Phillips had employed in the establishment of species.
…a very full description of that animal drawn up however in very loose style & unaccompanied by either diagnosis or synonymy. There is no history of the species given, no notice of its relations, & no reference to its general distribution. These are sad deficiencies in a work which should be as complete as possible. Phillips has a far greater practical acquaintance with Trilobites than I have but I do think that 3 weeks earnest study of the subject would enable me to master the subject.[105]
The extended gestation period for this new publication, which was to be called Organic Remains, allowed competitors to enter the scene. The slow production time of the Geological Society’s own journal, the main vehicle for the description of fossils, had shown that British collectors could lose out. D’Orbigny, for example, had no qualms in viewing new species in a British collection only to return to France and immediately publish them in his name and from French localities.[106]
Edward Charlesworth had made an attempt to increase the number of papers on fossils in the Magazine of Natural History when he became its editor in 1837. However, Charlesworth found the market for such journals small particularly as many people gained access to them in museums and libraries without subscribing. He also had to contend with the launch of a rival magazine which sought to undermine his sales.[107] When he left the magazine in 1840 its geological content went into decline until the latter part of the decade when Frederick McCoy took this on almost single-handedly.
In October 1846, Charlesworth published his London Geological Journal. This was aimed at, and had gathered considerable support from, gentlemen collectors who saw this as a means to have their fossils figured. This was a magazine for fossil connoisseurs like Charlesworth himself; it was not a work of pioneering science. Charlesworth exploited the keenness of collectors, including societies, by obtaining not only the loan of their specimens but also a contribution towards the process of engraving and publication. ‘I am obliged generally to select those subjects for illustration in which I receive some assistance’,[108] he told collectors; they, of course, feared that specimens from other collections might be figured instead. By this means Charlesworth could commercially exploit the ambitions of collectors to fund a magazine over which he had absolute control. On his visits to society and other collections he would select specimens remarking on their potential for illustration. The owners would be so flattered that monies to support this would be easily forthcoming. His trading activities in fossils had provided him with an excellent network of contacts with those collectors who principally acquired material through payment and who would be most amenable to Charlesworth’s particular mode of publication. In Phillips’ eyes the journal’s only merit was its fine plates; it was no competitor to the Survey’s planned volume. In the mould of contemporary natural history and philosophical magazines, but with a focus on the needs of the collector, this was a highly innovative publication which deserved success. It ran to just three numbers; Charlesworth’s career progressed as it had always done.
There were more serious threats to the Survey’s project. James De Carle Sowerby had, in 1839, proposed the continuation of Mineral Conchology; in 1846, George Brettingham Sowerby published a prospectus for a national work on palaeontology. All that seems to have arisen from this was a single unfinished 1846 volume of Mineral Conchology.
James Bowerbank,[109] a founder of the London Clay Club, established in 1836, came up with a more successful proposition. In 1845, at a meeting of this Club, Bowerbank suggested that Sowerby’s publication was inadequate for modern needs, not least because of its slow rate of progress. What emerged from this meeting was the basis for what became the Palaeontographical Society, which was established at a meeting held at the Geological Society in March 1847 under the chairmanship of Sir Henry De la Beche. Its aim was ‘to figure and describe as completely as possible a stratigraphical series of British fossils’.[110] With a Council including the likes of De la Beche, Phillips and Lyell as well as the most noted collectors and palaeontologists of the day, and the mainstays of the metropolitan collecting club around which it had been built, the solution to the palaeontological problem had been found by consensus. In 1845, it was felt that such a society would take just 25 years to figure all the British species.[111] Its first volume was supported by 568 individuals and 30 libraries. The membership would rapidly grow as the quality of the large format monographs became known.
The second part of volume 2 of the Memoirs of the Geological Survey was published in September 1847, containing a miscellany of papers and boasting some of the finest fossil plates yet seen in Britain. Two years later the Survey’s Organic Remains appeared but its long gestation and inferior format would make it unlikely to succeed. The aim of the publication was to figure in elaborate detail a selection of fossil genera and their most remarkable species from all animal and plant classes found in British rocks, focusing particularly on those where the costs of illustration would be too much for the private purse.[112] This latter addition to its list of aims was a feeble attempt at justification; the now established Palaeontographical Society Monographs were capable of figuring any British fossil. The Survey’s journal did not aim to be comprehensive but in the first ‘Decade’, Forbes figured all the known Silurian and London Clay starfish, together with new Jurassic forms, and a variety of fossil sea urchins. The starfish were figured as new species under the authorship of Forbes; they allowed little opportunity for lengthy description or diagnosis. The urchins were a different matter – the material supported remarkably detailed illustration of species characters, and comprehensive taxonomic review including the crucial isolation of synonyms, diagnosis and comparison. This was work vastly superior to that which had previously been published by the Survey. Specimens from private collections made an important contribution to these volumes. This was because description focused on rare and high quality specimens, material which would not necessarily be generated during a survey and could only be amassed over a long period of time. Other volumes appeared but authors became impatient with the slow rate of engraving. With the premature death of Forbes and the inadequacy of Salter as his replacement, Organic Remains would inevitably fail.
The middle years of the 1840s saw palaeontology transformed. Whilst it became wrapped up in fashions for numeracy and environmentalism, these ultimately took the understanding of fossils to a new level of sophistication. Fossil collecting became more comprehensive and more theory driven. The Geological Survey was central to these developments and had carried the science of palaeontology into the hands of naturalists where it had long been thought to belong. The thoughts of natural historians increasingly influenced the perspective taken of rocks.
Yet, at the same time, the work of Forbes echoed that of Phillips decades earlier. He too found museum collections a useful model for cross-country correlation and pursued fieldwork in order to make up for the omissions of the cabinet collector. As the Survey grew and became more bureaucratic the Survey’s palaeontologist had fewer opportunities to closely follow the work of the field teams. It seemed that the Survey’s integrated collecting model was returning to one more akin to a network. However, the efficiency of the earlier model can be overemphasised as Phillips never really had time to exploit the massive collections gathered and was, anyway, too easily distracted by more general geological considerations.
Nevertheless, during these years the Geological Survey under De la Beche’s leadership had attempted to nationalise stratigraphic geology and palaeontology; the private individual, it seemed, would have a diminished role. However, whilst the Survey remained in control of regional stratigraphy it failed in its final attempts to make palaeontology its own. Too many individuals – collectors and scientists – had interests in this area, and the power of the co-operative Palaeontographical Society proved too much for both Charlesworth’s commercial palaeontology and De la Beche’s palaeontology of the State. This was one small failure on De la Beche’s part and probably not one particularly close to his heart. His greatest achievement had been in bringing together and nurturing a team of individuals capable of taking on established traditions in science. Under his leadership, within little more than a decade, he had built an organisation which housed the national stratigraphic palaeontological museum and extended its influence out to the corners of the empire.
[1] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 29 December 1842, NMW.
[2] ibid. In later life Phillips often received queries asking him to recall the details of some previously observed geological section or locality.
[3] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 23 January 1843, NMW. Morris’s A Catalogue of British Fossils, published in 1843, was to list 5000 British fossil species, according to Phillips this was many thousands short of the true figure, Phillips, York to De la Beche, 7 October 1843, NMW.
[4] Phillips, London to De la Beche, 26 July 1843, NMW.
[5] ibid.
[6] ibid.
[7] Joseph Ellison Portlock (1794 – 14 February 1864).
[8] James, Dublin to De la Beche, 15, 19, 22 April 1843, NMW 751, 752 & 753.
[9] James, Dublin to De la Beche, 27 April 1843, NMW 754.
[10] Phillips, Wotton under Edge to De la Beche, 15 May 1843, NMW.
[11] Phillips, Taunton to De la Beche, 27 April 1840, NMW
[12] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 10 February 1843, NMW.
[13] Phillips, Malvern to De la Beche, 13 November 1842, NMW
[14] Rudwick (1985:35).
[15] De la Beche, Camelford to T.W. Philipps, 21 July 1835, BGS GSM 1/1 Entry book in-out letters 1835-42.
[16] De la Beche, Falmouth to Phillips, 31 May 1837, OUM Phillips DLB6.
[17] De la Beche, Bridgend to Phillips, York, 3 May 1840, OUM DLB37.
[18] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 23 January 1843, NMW.
[19] See, for example, B (1828b); Anon. (1828b). Lyell (1826:155) remarks that it was ‘wholly unworthy of the present age’. See also Stearn (1981).
[20] Magazine of Natural History (NS), 3, 512.
[21] Forbes, to De la Beche, 11 November 1844, NMW 543. See Moore et al (1991:59ff).
[22] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 5 March 1842, NMW.
[23] Phillips to De la Beche, 16 February 1843, NMW.
[24] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 1 February 1843, NMW.
[25] Phillips, Wotton under Edge to De la Beche, 19 May 1843, NMW.
[26] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 10 February & 9 April 1843, NMW.
[27] Phillips, Ledbury to De la Beche, 12 April 1843, NMW.
[28] ibid.
[29] Phillips (1843).
[30] Phillips, Wotton under Edge to De la Beche, 29 April 1843, NMW. Referring to the collections of J. Channing Pearce (18 July 1811 – 10 May 1847); William Walton; Samuel Pearce Pratt (1789-1863); Harry Jelly (b.1801).
[31] Phillips, Wotton under Edge to De la Beche, 19 May 1843, NMW.
[32] Phillips, Wotton under Edge to De la Beche, 18 & 19 May 1843 NMW. In March 1845, his wage was raised from 4s to 6s per week. De la Beche, London to Gibbs, 19 March 1845, HST.
[33] De la Beche, London to Gibbs, 17 January 1845, HST. Gibbs remained in his lowly position until his death in 1878. Secord (1985b:235).
[34] Phillips, Wotton under Edge to De la Beche, 14 May 1843, NMW.
[35] Phillips, London to De la Beche, 24 July 1843, NMW. See Herries Davies (1983) for a detailed account of the political machinations surrounding the development of the Survey, particularly with regard to Ireland. My concerns here are to explore Phillips’ attempts to reach the pinnacle of British palaeontology in terms of personal status, in an organisation which sought to integrate collecting and control the dissemination of palaeontological information. Whilst recognising De la Beche’s ambitions, Herries Davies (1983:113) sees Phillips as ‘just a devoted geologist. Frank, open and guileless…’
[36] Phillips to De la Beche, incomplete & undated letter [July 1843?], NMW.
[37] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 2 January 1844, NMW.
[38] Phillips, Kingstown to De la Beche, 4 January 1844, NMW.
[39] Phillips to De la Beche, 3 February 1844, OUM Phillips Carbonic Book./NMW.
[40] Philips to De la Beche, 4 February 1844, NMW.
[41] Philips to De la Beche, 4 February 1844, NMW.
[42] Phillips to De la Beche, 3 February 1844, OUM Phillips Carbonic Book./NMW.
[43] Phillips, Dublin to De la Beche, 15 May 1844, NMW.
[44] Phillips, Malvern to De la Beche, 25 May 1844, NMW.
[45] Meaning reduce or translate.
[46] Phillips, Dublin to De la Beche, 8 June 1844, NMW.
[47] Phillips, Dublin to De la Beche, 19 June 1844, NMW.
[48] Phillips, Malvern to De la Beche, 13 July 1844, NMW.
[49] Phillips, Malvern to De la Beche, 16 July 1844, NMW.
[50] Phillips, Malvern to De la Beche, 24 July 1844, NMW.
[51] Forbes to De la Beche, 17 December [1844], NMW 544.
[52] De la Beche, Builth to Phillips, 29 July 1844, OUM Phillips DLB 51.
[53] Forbes, to De la Beche, 11 November 1844, NMW 543.
[54] Mills (1984:373).
[55] This was again investigated in March 1845 when De la Beche consulted both Forbes and James regarding the description of British and Irish fossils. Forbes expressed the view that he felt in the interests of consistency both British and Irish fossils should be described by the same person. James agreed but said the Irish fossils should stay in Ireland for the purposes of reference. De la Beche, London to James; Forbes, London to De la Beche; James to De la Beche, Monday 10 March 1845, BGS GSM 1/12 Correspondence of the Director General 1836-47/65. Forbes was given the necessary authority on Wednesday 21 May 1845, Earl of Lincoln to De la Beche, BGS GSM 1/4 Entry letter book – in/out 1845-46.
[56] Phillips, Malvern to De la Beche, 24 August 1844, NMW.
[57] Forbes, to De la Beche, 17 December 1844, NMW 544.
[58] Phillips to De la Beche, 3 February 1844, NMW.
[59] Copy of Treasury Minute BGS GSM 1/4 Entry letter book – in/out 1845-46.
[60] Phillips to De la Beche, 6 March &18 April 1845, NMW. Phillips resigned his post before De la Beche had acquired funds to pay for his employment. De la Beche to the Earl of Lincoln, Wednesday 19 March 1845, BGS GSM 1/12 Correspondence of the Director General 1836-47/65.
[61] The queerness of May Hill was to have considerable implications for the battle over Palaeozoic nomenclature in the next decade, Secord (1986a:242-75) discusses this in detail.
[62] Phillips, Buxton to De la Beche, 7 June 1846, NMW.
[63] De la Beche, 22 May 1845, BGS GSM 1/4 Entry letter book – in/out 1845-6.
[64] Secord (1986b:237).
[65] Forbes to De la Beche, 11 November 1844, NMW 543. Forbes published the results of these studies in two ground breaking papers, Forbes (1844a; 1844b).
[66] Forbes, Zetland to De la Beche, 1 August [1845], NMW 549.
[67] James, Dublin to De la Beche, 27 April 1846, NMW 769.
[68] James, Dublin to De la Beche, 30 April 1846, NMW 771.
[69] Frederick McCoy (1823 – May 1899).
[70] James, London to McCoy, 22 May 1845, BGS GSM 1/4 Entry letter book – in-out 1845-46.
[71] James, Dublin to De la Beche, 17 April 1846, NMW 767.
[72] William (his surname) appears to have been a fossil collector employed with Gibbs to support Ramsay’s work in Wales; he was possibly a local. In 1850 he was suspended from the Survey and appears to have died or sunk into ill health or some other misfortune (T. Sharpe, Pers. Comm.). Ramsay to De la Beche, 10 July & 21 September, 1850, NMW 1796 & 1799.
[73] Ramsay, Dolgelli to De la Beche, 30 June 1846, NMW 1741.
[74] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 4 November 1846, NMW.
[75] Ramsay, Bala to De la Beche, 8 November 1846, NMW 1752.
[76] An area surveyed by McCoy and ‘bungled’. Forbes, Dublin to De la Beche, 9 & 31 March [1847], NMW 557 & 558.
[77] Forbes, to De la Beche, 31 March 1847, NMW 558.
[78] Forbes, Kingston to De la Beche, 5 September [1847 FJN], NMW 560.
[79] Forbes, to De la Beche, 2 June 1848, NMW 568.
[80] Edward Forbes, West Lulworth to De la Beche, 8 November 1849, NMW 575.
[81] Gapper was also a fossil collector.
[82] Ramsay, Swanage to De la Beche, 27 April 1851, NMW 1806.
[83] Phillips to De la Beche, 24 June 1841, NMW.
[84] Phillips, York, to De la Beche, 31 March 1842, NMW.
[85] De la Beche (1846).
[86] De la Beche (1846:38). This Phillips had seen in the field and assumed was solid Syenite; but was actually rolled Syenite blocks incorporated into a deposit of Caradoc demonstrating clearly the pre-Caradocian age of intrusion, Phillips (1848:66).
[87] ‘Centres of creation’ was a widely held concept in contemporary biology (Rehbock 1983:336).
[88] John William Salter (15 December 1820 – 2 December 1869) had began his career as an apprentice to James de Carle Sowerby, and was to rise to the position of Survey Palaeontologist, before a tragic decline in the manner of so many early professionals (Secord 1985).
[89] Phillips, Baslow to De la Beche, 3 October 1847, NMW.
[90] Phillips (1848:2).
[91] Phillips (1848:2).
[92] Challinor (1971:119) states that Phillips’ Malvern work has never been superseded.
[93] Phillips (1848:205).
[94] Indeed the study of trilobites was now within the realm of the entomologist! (Phillips 1848:208 & 335).
[95] Phillips (1848:216).
[96] Phillips (1848:217).
[97] Phillips (1848:318).
[98] Phillips (1848:320) notes that the Survey had been more successful at fossil collecting than Murchison.
[99] Phillips (1848:65).
[100] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 19 January 1843, NMW.
[101] That these were Buckland’s objections can be inferred from Phillips, York to De la Beche, Monday 23 January 1843, NMW.
[102] Phillips to De la Beche, 21 March 1843, NMW.
[103] Phillips, London to De la Beche, 26 July & 19 September 1843, NMW.
[104] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 27 July 1843, NMW.
[105] Forbes criticism of Phillips’ account of Asaphus buchii. Forbes to De la Beche, 17 November [1844], NMW 544.
[106] Fitton, London to De la Beche, 21 December 1847, NMW 539.
[107] This was the Magazine of Zoology and Botany begun in 1836 which was renamed Annals of Natural History in 1838 and extended its remit to geology. The Naturalist was also established in 1836 with the intention to supplant the magazine. See Charlesworth, E. 1837. Preface. Mag. Nat. Hist. (new series), 1, iii-iv; Charlesworth, E. 1840. Appendix, Mag. Nat. Hist. (new series), 4, 1-10.
[108] Edward Charlesworth, York to H Davey, Beccles, 22 November 1847, BGS IGS 1/785 Davey letters.
[109] James Scott Bowerbank (14 July 1797 – 8 March 1877), a wealthy London distiller who amassed large collections of fossils and developed a scientific interest in these and other natural history subjects.
[110] Anon. (1896:386).
[111] Anon. (1896:385).
[112] De la Beche 1849. Notice, Organic Remains, 1, iii-iv.
Simon Knell 