© 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.
The publication of John Phillips’ volume on the Yorkshire coast in 1829 elevated his standing in science from unknown provincial curator to one of the country’s foremost regional geologists. His rise was to be meteoric, but apparently surprised him little; he had known for some time of what he was capable and seen how this might be achieved. In following years he would find a central role in the British Association for the Advancement of Science and replace Charles Lyell as Professor of Geology at Kings College, London. Whilst this would do much to enhance his reputation, it was a chance contact with Henry De la Beche early in 1830 which most affected his prospects.[1]
At this time, De la Beche was preparing to publish a series of fossil lists in the Philosophical Magazine whilst Phillips simultaneously wrote an account of the geology of Havre.[2] Hearing of De la Beche’s project, Phillips held back publication expecting some overlap. When De la Beche heard of this from Buckland, he wrote immediately to reassure Phillips; his only interest was in the geographical distribution of fossils of the ‘Oolite’.[3] Phillips felt he could help with this and in response supplied stratigraphic information on Ostrea deltoidea at Havre and elsewhere. The letter communicated Phillips’ remarkable knowledge of comparative localities in Britain; perhaps it was his intention to demonstrate that he was no mere ‘local observer’, certainly he saw such correspondence as an opportunity to show himself.[4]
These letters, the first between the two, marked the beginning of a friendship which would nationalise and professionalise provincial geology, and shift Phillips’ career towards palaeontology. Just four years older than Phillips, this gentleman geologist took Phillips at face value; it would be some time before he would more fully understand Phillips’ circumstances.
De la Beche’s estimation of Phillips was further heightened on seeing a copy of his Guide to Geology several years later. In De la Beche’s opinion, this book far surpassed similar works available at the time. In this he had a personal interest, having published his Geological Manual in 1831. This, however, though a work of great merit, failed to match the popularity of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology which spawned a new edition every year.[5] If the rivalry between De la Beche and Lyell began to appear then,[6] it came to a head at the end of 1834, when the latter joined Murchison in ridiculing De la Beche’s claims for coal plants in the Grauwacke.[7] De la Beche was now more set against Lyell, who was also backing Gerard Paul Deshayes to resolve the growing crisis in palaeontology. Deshayes was not universally admired, De la Beche regarded the Frenchman as a ‘mere conchologist’; some questioned whether he was even that.[8] In part out of this developing rivalry, De la Beche now encouraged Phillips to take the lead with regard to British organic remains.
De la Beche told Phillips that the study required both experience of fossils and geology: ‘a good work on organic remains requires this union’, as Phillips himself had shown.[9] If Phillips were to take this on, as a concession, he promised not extend his treatment of fossils in future editions of the Manual. This was, in reality, not that generous an offer, De la Beche harboured deep uncertainties about the stratigraphic utility of fossils and increasingly felt the need for a palaeontological ally. He had been engaged in a geological survey of Devon and Cornwall since 1832, under the Board of Ordnance, where he had recently located, what John Lindley[10] had determined to be, Coal Measure plants in the Grauwacke of Bideford.[11] ‘There was some skirmishing about this when announced at the late meeting of the Geol. Soc. – but the fact is as stated, it can be readily seen by those who will take the trouble to see’, he told Phillips, adding:
I should not probably go so far as yourself in the value attributed to organic remains and for ever since Elie de Beaumont obtained that mixture or rather alternation of belemnites with coal measure plants in the Alps of Savoy and France I have been somewhat sceptical as to the geological value of terrestrial vegetation.[12]
De la Beche’s approach came at a time when Phillips, exhausted by work on his Mountain Limestone volume,[13] had resolved not to attempt any further treatises on regional geology. Indeed, the British Association had already asked him to compile a critical catalogue of British fossil species;[14] De la Beche was not alone in recognising Phillips’ particular aptitude for fossil work. Phillips welcomed De la Beche’s courting, he could see that it would continue his upward path and place him in a central role in the expanding world of geology. In this way, De la Beche hoped to buy the support of a good palaeontologist and one not too rooted in tradition or with established links to his competitors. His motives were as much political as scientific.
The two had much in common. Phillips felt a ‘coincidence of thought & feeling’[15] between them, which he attributed to their sharing a geological education founded in the field ‘which many of our book men have not enjoyed’.[16] Only by this could one avoid ‘blind adherence to some overstrained system’, he told De la Beche. The latter agreed, ‘you and I do somehow jump much together – keep poking the physics and chemistry well into the old story – it is the only way to drive out that kind of geology which might be termed le Geologie des Dames’.[17]
Phillips could also offer an open mind, which was so lacking in De la Beche’s competitors; his role as sounding board could be as valuable as his palaeontological expertise. The extent to which Phillips held liberal views on fossils, however, surprised De la Beche. He was, for example, entirely unsettled on questions of comparative rates of change in organic remains from terrestrial and aquatic realms. He could see no reason why certain parts of the globe might not be immune from the faunal revolutions seen elsewhere; similar faunas and floras need not be synchronous as they were as much dependent on physical conditions as on time.[18] Phillips also had a surprising disregard for the purity of his uncle’s ‘bald & trifling notion of the “identification of strata” by their organic contents’;[19] the reality being considerably more complex. Rather than prejudge the age of a rock by its interred flora or fauna, he believed such data should be put into the inductive machine and used to derive new principles. In particular, knowledge of fossil floras seemed far behind those of faunas.
I should not be surprised if some fine day I may be able to give a drawing of some Pecopteris from the Cambrian rocks (Sedgwick’s nomenclature), but it would more amaze me to find Goniatites of the Carb. Limestone among the older Grauwacke – other Goniatites I should expect.[20]
Such views made the troubled De la Beche ‘rejoice’; he had at last found an ally.[21]
Geological symbiosis
The crisis affecting palaeontology, which Phillips’ catalogue was to remedy, was one of nomenclature; synonymy was rife.[22] Inadequate description, unavailability of texts, arrogance, laziness and monument building had resulted in a multiplication and complication of names. Authors often had inadequate field knowledge; many believed that if ‘they occur in the same stratum’ they must be the same species. As Lonsdale had told De la Beche, ‘as every one may call what he thinks fit a species, every one may be right’.[23]
Lyell, too, saw the muddle of fossil names as a problem of ‘haute philosophie’ but believed that a conchologist, possessing a knowledge of intraspecific variation within extant species, would be better equipped to discern fossil species. As President of the Geological Society he was also able to award Deshayes £25 from the Wollaston Fund. But many saw Deshayes as one of the culprits of untamed description:
many of the identifications of fossil & recent shells are disputed & will be still more so, by eminent conchologists & Deshayes may earn a still higher title to the medal by answering them as I know he can.[24]
In his correspondence with De la Beche, Phillips hinted at the practical utility of his most recent work on Mountain Limestone fossils, which was soon to appear. The fauna there described would be vital to understanding the rocks of Devon, where De la Beche was also finding Mountain Limestone species. This formation with its rich fossil fauna was, principally through Phillips’ work, the best known of the older marine rocks and provided the key to distinguishing the biological indices of still older formations. De la Beche saw the necessity of getting Phillips’ assistance and immediately thought of how this might be gained. Phillips’ critical catalogue was, at this time, failing through a desperate lack of support from collectors; to date only one had supplied him with material. Phillips considered restricting his survey to northern England where at least he was assured of access to collections, but De la Beche offered another solution. In carrying through his survey of Cornwall and Devon, he would be able to send, at no cost to Phillips, ‘remarkable’ specimens unlike anything seen outside of that arriving from America. In return Phillips would provide information on these fossils for the Survey report.[25] The needs of both men would thus be met, though De la Beche encouraged Phillips to move beyond his catalogue and begin work on a definitive volume on organic remains. Phillips already had a view of what the latter should comprise:
a satisfactory view of the natural affinities of organic remains, their relation to existing forms, their dependence on physical conditions, & the legitimate inferences from the facts known concerning them.[26]
The arrangement, which involved an exchange of favours and not of cash, as mutually beneficial as it seemed, demonstrated De la Beche’s ignorance of Phillips’ financial circumstances. Phillips no doubt carried himself with a level of education which belied his humble background; but the two hardly knew each other. De la Beche was on a salary for this work; Phillips was not. Nevertheless, Phillips responded positively, but warned De la Beche that such an undertaking would take many years. ‘You will do the work philosophically, it has hitherto been done in a way which marvellously lacks philosophy’, De la Beche encouraged.[27]
De la Beche’s Devonian investigations were two-pronged: field investigation and collecting gave him a framework for interpreting structure; examination of existing collections would enhance this interpretation by providing palaeontological keys to the age of the rocks. He immediately began to search out existing collections from which Phillips could extract useful data. Those of worth within the two counties were few. Amongst them was the collection of David Williams of Bleadon and the Rev. Richard Hennah,[28] which contained important Plymouth material. An appeal for material was also made at the British Association meeting in Bristol in 1836.
All seemed to be going well but as the geology of Devon took on an increasingly controversial slant, views became more polarised and collections became political territory. At first, Phillips was promised the breadth of material represented in the best private cabinets in Cornwall and Devon. Then, suddenly, it seemed that Hennah’s collection would only be available to Murchison and Sedgwick, De la Beche’s main rivals. Williams also began to see increasing scope for his own scientific progression utilising his collection to ‘determine the disputed question’ himself.[29] Major William Harding of Tiverton also had an important collection of North Devon fossils which De la Beche hoped to borrow. The best collection, however, lay in the hands of ‘a rising geological man’,[30] Robert Alfred Cloyne Austen who, like Williams, also planned to exploit this for his own ends. ‘I now have all that the quarries produce’, he proclaimed. A suggestion which, since he continued to add new species in the following months, probably meant that he was assured of all new finds.[31] Likewise, the philosophical aspirations of Samuel Rowles Pattison of Launceston might remove another collection from Phillips view.[32] For De la Beche and Phillips to succeed in their respective projects the collectors would need to be brought under control: ‘To advance science we must all men to work from all sorts of motives, but “every gentleman for his peculiar fame” is sad work’.[33]
What De la Beche needed was a mechanism for extracting collections from individuals who were overly possessive of the information they contained. His solution was to tell them that Phillips would return collections with specimens determined and labelled. Unfortunately, he made this assurance before talking to Phillips, unaware of the additional labour involved.[34] In practice, the idea was a good one, as it at least released the collectors’ grasp on their treasures. If collectors were to pursue their own theories then accurate identification, which they had no way of achieving themselves, would assist them greatly and, by this means, cost them nothing. De la Beche was to continue to worry about the supply of collections but his tactic worked, helped no doubt by Phillips’ bland and apparently impartial disposition.
Progressively, the collectors were won over, and by early 1839 Phillips had seen most of the collections and even borrowed material from Sedgwick. De la Beche continued to fret over access to Austen’s fossils, but need not have done so. Austen had suggested that local rocks at Newton Bushel were of Mountain Limestone age. This was based on a comparison of his fossils with those in Phillips’ book, which provided Austen’s only access to information on the fauna of this formation; his rich and extensive collection contained not a single comparative specimen. But book illustrations alone were far from ideal and he sought a higher authority. Amongst those he approached was Murchison, who suggested that he ‘could not be better referred’ than to Phillips, and contact was made.[35]
In December 1837, as Austen began to make his own views known, De la Beche moved into South Wales in search of further clues, and promised to continue to send material to Phillips: ‘During our progress through Wales I will take great care to procure fossils for you. I suspect we shall not be long before we turn out some private collections of Carboniferous Limestone shells, corals, etc’.[36] Phillips had only begun work on De la Beche’s specimens in the previous month, a year after the deal had been struck. It was then that he became aware of the difficulty of his task. His past works had relied upon a limited number of well curated collections, to which he had fairly open access. He visited the collections, compared the contents with his existing knowledge, and then organised and selected what should be appended to his existing cache of description-worthy specimens. The new arrangement was far less manageable. It involved the haphazard arrival of a miscellany of specimens which the collectors themselves, in isolation, had determined as potentially important. De la Beche, for example, had instructed Williams ‘to select those specimens which he considers most determinable’.[37] But how would Williams know what Phillips considered ‘determinable’? Phillips had never in the past expressed a preference for ‘cabinet quality’ specimens, and indeed he and Smith frequently utilised mere fragments. Fine specimens would, however, certainly make the task easier but would be unlikely to give a comprehensive view of either fauna or stratigraphy; useful comparative material would remain out of reach.
Each box or basket arriving in York contained perhaps 100 fossils of miscellaneous types, localities and rocks. If they were well preserved and conformed to an existing species the task of identification was relatively simple, but inevitably each basket would contain new forms. These could not be identified or described in isolation; similar species, from which they would need to be distinguished, had to be determined concurrently. And yet these might not turn up for many months, if at all, relying as the arrangement did on the collector’s ability to discern importance on criteria other than purely aesthetic grounds.
The effectiveness of the arrangement depended on the connoisseurship of the collector. Whilst this protected Phillips from being swamped with specimens, it also introduced another possible source of omission derived from the relatively parochial interests of the collectors. Most collected from an extremely limited area – an area they would know well but one which encouraged the asking of questions concerning the internal consistency and relationships of rocks and fossils within that area. In particular they were interested in finding new species and species indicative of age – without being equipped to assess how these might be determined. Phillips was most interested in the comparison of similar species across wide geographical areas, which might reflect changes of substrate as well as temporal difference.
By February 1838, De la Beche had completed his fieldwork and was putting the finishing touches to his Devonian report. He now called for Phillips to meet his part of the bargain and supply a report on the fossils so that this could be incorporated into De la Beche’s arguments.[38] The report, however, was not forthcoming. A confidential meeting was urgently convened on Thursday 1 March 1838 at which Phillips acquainted De la Beche with the status of the work, its needs, practicalities and its future. He might also have informed De la Beche of his impoverished circumstances. As he was later to tell De la Beche:
the unfortunate part of my scientific career has been this: that attaching myself to science from a pure love of it, want of financial power forced me into Scientific business, (if some of my engagements may be so termed) and I am caught in nets of my own forging.[39]
Phillips’ scientific work depended upon the income it might generate. With proper remuneration De la Beche could expect a work on the fossils of Devon and Cornwall which would meet both their needs. It would be Phillips’ definitive volume and De la Beche’s palaeontological key. De la Beche had already committed himself to Phillips; Phillips now dictated his terms:
•£250 for a volume on the fossils of Devon and Cornwall, completed in one year and to include both descriptions and figures.
•£250 to be set aside for publication of this volume.
•£200 for regular work on Ordnance Survey fossils; to be £300 if this included work for the Irish Survey. Plus expenses, carriage and travelling.[40]
Up to this point Phillips’ involvement had been voluntary and unofficial.[41] De la Beche now had to approach the Treasury as if this were a new arrangement. He began by requesting the £250 which would pay for Phillips to undertake the work on the Devon collections; publicly funded science was in its infancy, he thus took a softly softly approach tackling one cost at a time.[42] There was, however, no assurance that the Treasury would grant this expenditure or approve Phillips for the task. De la Beche had to be certain that there was nothing which could interfere with his plans; he wrote to Phillips:
Tell me confidentially without mentioning names, if you think there is any tolerably influential person likely to try and put a spoke in your wheel and prevent you describing and figuring the Devon fossils because if there is, we must shove him out of any mischief by showing a good honest straight forward course the which always puzzles intriguers.[43]
Phillips out-collects the collectors of Devon
No intriguers appeared and the plan was approved in late July 1838. Immediately, De la Beche instructed Phillips to visit the area to see the sites from which the fossils came. Austen urged Phillips to locate himself at Ogwell House. This would assure Austen of some intelligent discourse on geology, place his collection at the heart of the proposed work, and leave it fully determined. The latter was particularly important to Austen as he was keen to take advantage of the celebrity of local fossils in foreign exchanges. He was already in negotiation with Philippe de Verneuil, a Parisian lawyer and gentleman geologist, but until Phillips saw the collection, there was always a risk of sending away fossils which might be important to the story.[44]
It was essential for Phillips to enter the field if he were to truly understand the affiliations of the species he was isolating in these collections. His aim was primarily to overcome the biases of cabinet collectors:
my plan of operations inevitably required me to study specimens, before going to examine their situations in the rock. My object in this latter task was not in fact geological, I wished to remedy the very evident incompleteness of the evidence contained in the collections shewn me by inspection of the thousand fragments in the quarries, which are often decisive as to changes of form with age &c., though little valued in the drawers.[45]
Despite his intentions, Phillips did not depart for Devon. This both frustrated and concerned De la Beche. Phillips had let him down once and was again not keeping his part of the bargain. Despite repeated warnings, he was now likely to lose the opportunity of seeing Austen in Devon, as he was about to move to Guildford. In June 1839, De la Beche reminded Phillips of his one year deadline; there was now only one month left for him to complete his work.[46] Phillips’ failure here could wreck not just his own career plans, but seriously affect the future of the Survey, De la Beche’s career and government support for this type of investigation.
The cause of Phillips’ delay was financial. He was already committed to lecturing at Kings College, administrative work for the British Association, and duties for the Yorkshire Philosophical Society. These occupations provided him with a regular income; payment for De la Beche’s work would only arrive following its completion.[47] If De la Beche could have secured Phillips an advance he would have been able to proceed, but this was not possible. Phillips’ difficult financial circumstances had worsened with Smith’s death in August 1839, from which he acquired both his uncle’s debt and the duty of maintaining Smith’s mentally ill widow.[48] De la Beche stepped in and did all he could to help the beleaguered Phillips, and checked to see if Smith had received his full payment for work undertaken on the stone for the Houses of Parliament.[49]
Phillips’ apparent inactivity had also been caused by a keenness to complete his work on the collections he had been sent. He had drawn all the species in his own and his friend John Edward Lee’s, collection, and sketched some of those from Dr Harvey B. Holl, Pattison, and Harding. He also had ‘a general notion of the meaning’ of Williams’ collections, and had seen a few of Hennah’s fossils. But now the collectors were becoming frustrated and uneasy about Phillips’ slow progress; their collections had great potential in settling a major geological controversy but would have no part to play in it if locked away in York or London. Harding was now asking for the return of his collections and in November, Williams also withdrew his fossils, which Phillips had had for a year. These were no longer to be available to the Survey and Williams asked Phillips not to publish any figures of his best specimen as these would add impact to the work he now planned to produce himself.[50] Holl had taken his to America; Hennah’s remained under the control of Sedgwick and Murchison; and Austen’s were in three places. Lonsdale informed Phillips that Austen too urgently wanted his specimens returned, but added a word of encouragement:
The subject of Devon geology came in again at G:S: [Geological Society] on Wednesday last but what the subject wants is to be treated zoologically which is not attempted in the past but which I should be much pleased to hear we might expect from you.[51]
Despite the withdrawal of his material, Williams, who was not a man who naturally held high opinions of others, also wrote to encourage Phillips to visit Devon, perhaps fearing the rivalry of Austen:
Do go. The first competent observer will have the merit of deciding the question “non chion nominum & c.” You can do it – Prof Sedgwick and Mr Murchison I think will not and Mr Austen (who lives there) can not. The latter has not sufficient power of comprehension and combination for the great scale on which matters have been adjusted there.[52]
By the end of February 1840, Phillips had ‘disposed of many troublesome affairs’ and intended to set off for Devon and Cornwall in the following month, stopping in London on the way to view some of the fossils which had been sent there, and at Bristol to pick up his friend William Sanders.[53] Phillips was also encouraged to visit Austen’s residence at Gosden House, Guildford, where his collection was available for inspection together with much information regarding localities. Again he did not take up this opportunity, wishing to get into Devon as soon as possible.[54]
Before leaving he would ensure that the fossils he still had on loan would be returned to their respective owners. He asked De la Beche’s advice on hostelries, contacts, collections and localities; the only person he knew in North Devon was the Rev. William Bilton. De la Beche did better than to send the information and met up with Phillips in London with a supply of maps and suggestions for the itinerary. He then accompanied the pair into North Devon in order to show them some of the more obscure locations.[55] The tour, which was to be undertaken mainly on foot, would take two months – ‘the minimum of time adequate to see well so embarrassing a region’.[56]
Phillips and Sanders’ Devon tour would focus on the field. Collections were visited but fewer than perhaps De la Beche intended; many were, anyway, incomplete, specimens having been sent away to other workers. And whilst collectors were extremely keen for the two to visit, Phillips’ preference, as ever, was for the field where considerably more could be learnt. Here he was surprised at how easy it was to gather fossils: ‘At last I am sure I can get more fossils than most of my friends’, he told De la Beche excitedly.[57] It would appear to Phillips that valuable time had been lost in utilising Ordnance men and others to find fossils since they lacked the geological expertise to undertake the task effectively.
I have so many new things that I wonder what your young men were about in not supplying you with more of the organic fossils… Upon the whole I feel that here is still a mine of unknown value in regard to fossils but it cannot be worked by a stray visit, though every hour be used as we have honestly employed it, I do not know if I shall not return to winter hereabout, for it is quite certain that by careful attention much more might be done. However, as it is, I suppose I shall add 50 species to what are commonly known or thought to be known & many interesting localities. I suppose the Devonian trilobites will be fully half a dozen, and in the Coddon hill grits &c. ten species of shells. Think of that![58]
Phillips and Sanders left Devon with two or three hundred weight of fossils, Phillips returning with them to York where every species was to be described. He had entered Devon with little expectation of finding new species, so ‘indefatigable’ had been previous searches, doubtless believing that the rocks were less productive than they actually were.[59]
His relative success resulted from two flaws in the fossil collecting model De la Beche had brought into being. The first was the reliance upon local collectors and untrained Ordnance men, the assumption being that anyone with sufficient time could make an effective job of finding fossils Yet, most lacked more than a basic understanding of fossils and rocks. To a truly inductive science this would not matter; rocks were simply a ‘black box’. Phillips found that he could out-collect his collector friends because his collecting was not purely inductive, despite his own claims. He entered the field equipped with an increased understanding of the occurrence of fossil species in time and space, which would enable him to maximise his collecting. The second flaw arose from the dependence on collectors to select and send material. Phillips knew that this had led to omissions.
Phillips and Sanders had further increased their productivity by collecting bulk samples for splitting back at base, and by making casts from cavities left by shells and corals in rocks so weathered they defied collection.[60] Weathered heaps of fossils were used as indicators of the productivity of the quarries, enabling the two to maximise their collecting by focusing on those beds which were obviously productive.[61] Pattison also gave them some tips, showing them how lime nodules from the Petherwin Group could be partly burnt in a kiln to induce fracturing and reveal numerous Goniatites and Clymeniae.[62] Those fragmentary remains which Phillips knew would not be found in cabinet collections also gave him an insight into the distribution of species which could not be obtained in any other way. His prior examination of collections had assisted his fieldwork, enabling him to easily identify what he found, and distinguish that which was novel:
Mr Williams, among some valuable specimens which he sent me in 1837, enclosed a fine example of this curious fossil. In 1840, I found at Brushford, in North Devon, the young of the species, and impression of the plates about the pelvis; and in Major Harding’s collection saw with delight the full-grown body and arms.[63]
Forging a crown of British palaeontology
In March 1840, with Phillips successfully progressing with his survey of the South West, De la Beche began to make plans for the future. Aware of Phillips’ financial predicament and his most useful talents,[64] he sought to establish a palaeontological position attached to the Survey, something they had discussed at their London rendezvous two years earlier. He wrote to Phillips:
By the way, would it suit you if it could be so managed that every year you could devote a certain amount of time to the districts on which the ordnance geological survey may be engaged, investigating the organic remains in them. It being understood that there was proper remuneration ? Pray turn this on your mind.[65]
Phillips greeted the idea with enthusiasm, offering to drop almost all other engagements for this new opportunity. His York position he would give up at the end of 1840. His lecturing at Kings College had provided status but little else; he would happily resign. He also had lecturing dates scheduled for the Royal Institution, and a number of provincial societies.[66] Only his appointment with the British Association would he keep; for limited commitment this paid extremely well.
In the following weeks the two would discuss the details of the contract. Phillips would demand just two things: proper remuneration – a salary of £250 – and adequate funds for the results of such work to come before the public whether this be in publication or exhibition. Rather than work on fossils back at York at the end of a survey, Phillips suggested that he examine the material as it was extracted and that way aid understanding and direct collecting.[67] This would at least allow him to enter the field, much his preference to museum work. As negotiations progressed, De la Beche became increasingly ambitious about his Ordnance Geological Survey. In May 1840, he wrote to Phillips suggesting that he take over full responsibility for the ‘Department of Organic Remains’ as Superintendent.[68]
In October, Phillips was asked if he would undertake the examination, drawing and description of fossils for the South Wales survey in the next year. The scheme was approved the following January, and confirmed in the middle of the following month. Having given up nearly all of his money making commitments, he hoped, but had no assurances, that the post would be made permanent. The financial risks were not inconsiderable – the strength of government support for science was still untested; the Survey still a novelty. But the rewards were those he had long sought:
for I can not perceive in my country any other mode of occupation more consonant to my habits & feelings, more beneficial to my health, or more fertile of opportunities of performing useful labours in Science, and so of founding or strengthening a claim to be remembered among the Geologists of this age. Thus I remain fixed & not metamorphic, least of all changeable in the study of Organic remains.[69]
Should government support fail then as a contingency he was ready to embark on his own volume on the fossils of the North of England. The palaeontological direction on which he had been set by De la Beche was now fixed.
The search for N
Phillips’ intention with his volume on the fossils of Devon and Cornwall was to figure every species regardless of whether they have been figured before. This might at least clarify problems of synonymy and was a feature of the planned British Association catalogue. It also meant that he need not worry that his competitors had published identical species first, as indeed many had. His figures remained valid and he would happily give priority.
This comprehensiveness was important to Phillips; he felt it had been of key importance to the success of his Yorkshire treatises. His ambitions with this work were even more holistic: ‘This volume should be the commencement of a national work on the organic remains of GB & Ireland’.[70] De la Beche certainly supported the idea of a specialist fossil work as an entity separate from the standard Survey report; fossils were increasingly seen as zoological subjects worthy of study in their own right without the burden of stratigraphic and lithological detail.
However, such discussions were premature. De la Beche’s attempts to entice funds from the government had only succeeded in commissioning Phillips to undertake the work. De la Beche would wait before approaching the government for yet more money. By the Autumn of 1840, Phillips was heavily committed to publication and would carry the project forward himself, if no other means of funding were achieved and provided that the Ordnance department subscribed to an adequate number of copies. The volume would have upwards of 500 figures showing some 240 species, and would represent a considerable financial risk.[71] However, by early December, with the completed figures and descriptions ready for the press, De la Beche secured the necessary funding.
Phillips remained concerned about some of the names he had applied, aware that many new species, named in manuscript in Germany, were now in frequent use in Britain but were supported by no published description. At this point Phillips’ work consisted only of figures and descriptions, the statistical treatment of species seems to have been an afterthought.[72]
Pattison, Harding, Ottley, Lee and other collectors continued to correspond with Phillips, and send specimens, right up to the publication of what was to be called Figures and Descriptions of the Palaeozoic Fossils of Cornwall, Devon and West Somerset. For these men this was seen as a most important opportunity to see the products of their efforts in print although Phillips reverted to his old style and gave collectors only general acknowledgement and very occasional reference.
The much sought after collection of Austen, so late attended to, was still being sent to Phillips as the final plates were being engraved. Austen, having at last had material returned from Phillips, was now able to send specimens he was sure Phillips had not seen. The text now already set and the figures complete, Phillips added these to a short supplementary section. However, as he had to insist on a deadline, it was more important that the work look professional and properly arranged than complete.[73] At the end of May 1841, Phillips had 274 species for the Devonian volume; another 40 had not reached him.[74] Austen had a long time earlier talked of 300 species; Lonsdale was more convinced there were truly only 100; De Verneuil, working with Murchison, included 1100 species in the Devonian.[75] Phillips, in the end, published 277 species or ‘animal structures’ but believed the list would grow to 350, 400 or even more:[76]
That a hundred, or perhaps two hundred, species may yet be discovered in the wide districts of old fossiliferous strata exposed in Devon and Cornwall, is in my judgement, very probably; for my own examination (with very good assistance from a diligent fellow-labourer [Sanders]) led to the detection of new forms in almost every locality we visited.[77]
He immediately made plans for a supplement. Palaeozoic Fossils was published in the summer of 1841.
Phillips was anxious that his work should not suddenly become outmoded by stratigraphic uncertainties. His fossils would be catalogued according to local lithological names which lacked any wider correlation. Indeed such an arrangement was essential to the statistical study which followed the description. He also hoped that his plates would survive changes of nomenclature and figures were numbered but no names were added to the plates, ‘the greater part of the species will I hope thus become permanently identifiable’.[78] The fossil descriptions themselves made no direct link to strata, being bound to the only immutable truth – geographical locality.
In terms of acknowledging variation within species,[79] something which could hardly be ignored following the work of Deshayes and Lyell, and the influence of depositional environment, this was a work of great maturity. He carried through his earlier criticism of Smith’s ‘bald & trifling notion’ by suggesting that differences in species, and assemblages of species, at different localities could have a temporal and/or environmental cause.
As a work which aimed to establish a definitive nomenclature, however, Phillips’ style of description was hesitant and tentative; a mixture of uncertainty and diplomacy.[80] His previous works had been compiled when much younger and in far less controversial circumstances. Phillips’ transparent exposition, however, sought to hide nothing. Some species were supported by too few specimens which made defining their morphological limits difficult.[81] These problems became all too apparent as specimens drifted in over the years from various collections, making initial judgements regarding affinities and diagnostic characters incorrect, and warranting re-description.[82] In addition, Phillips did not have the comprehensive perspective for which he had hoped; there were many published species, such as many of Lonsdale’s corals, of which all he could do was copy the previous descriptions.
De la Beche’s objective in appointing Phillips was to resolve the rock succession in Devon, but he had also backed him for greater palaeontological glory against Lyell’s man, Deshayes. It is ironic then that Phillips should have adapted the statistical methods which Lyell and Deshayes pioneered for the study of the Cainozoic in his analysis of the mysteries of Devon and Cornwall.[83] The origins of Phillips’ statistical approach, whilst undoubtedly influenced by Lyell, can be traced back to contacts in the 1820s and the fashion for botanical arithmetic.[84] The honorary curator of Botany in York, had been the lecturer William Hincks who was a strong advocate of the work of Augustine De Candolle, a pioneer of these methods. The Museum also had close links with Adolphe Brongniart who used similar tables in his Histoire des Végétaux Fossiles in 1828. The approach of Deshayes, adopted by Lyell, which sought to trace the diminishing numbers of existing species in Tertiary fossil assemblages, as an indication of age, had been criticised by Charlesworth for ignoring inconsistencies of nomenclature and the mixing of successive deposits.[85] Phillips, however, thought the technique valid.[86] But he was aware that fossil species and genera were geographically limited, and thus ‘characteristic fossils’ alone were a weak means to establish correlation. What was required was a comparison of as many different species, representing as many animal and plant groups, as possible; the characteristic fossil was to be replaced by ‘characteristic combinations of organic life’.[87] The novelty of this approach should not be overplayed, however: Phillips’ account of the Yorkshire coast was based on fossil lists as indeed were Smith’s. Phillips did believe that certain species gave a good indication of age – such as Ostrea deltoidea. Smith did not rely exclusively on fossils for determining strata – his ‘bald and trifling notion’ had been stripped bare by those who saw its novelty. Smith placed equal importance on mineral characters and superimposition; as did Phillips. Smith certainly seems to have been opposed to the simplistic use of ‘characteristic fossils’.[88]
In order to use fossils as temporal markers he needed to eradicate the influence of geographical variables; he did this by referring to an internally consistent framework based on the known succession of life: the great eras – Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cainozoic as he had previously described in an article in Penny Cyclopedia.[89]This was as opposed to the adoption of Murchison’s Silurian which both Phillips and De la Beche considered a local system.
Phillips recognised, and sought to correct, any errors likely to arise from the simplistic inductivism which underpinned the statistical approach. He knew, for example, that the occurrence of species often depended upon environment, others were poorly defined, and still others were diachronous in their distribution. However, he believed that if large numbers of species were used and the geographical area was small such problems should be overcome.
Phillips compared Devon with similar outlying areas both in terms of age and lithology, on the established assumption that younger rocks contain more species. His two outlying districts had to have been treated in similar depth to Phillips’ current work and so he chose Murchison’s Siluria – here called Lower Palaeozoic – and his own Mountain Limestone descriptions – referred to here as Upper Palaeozoic. Phillips knew Murchison’s rocks were older than the Mountain Limestone and would expect the number of known species to have likewise placed the Devon and Cornwall rocks somewhere between the two. It did not. The two counties had produced fewer fossils than either, a problem Phillips dismissed as resulting from the exceptional richness of the strata Murchison had used and the inadequacy of collecting in the South West.
Having suffered one failure of assumption and method, he compared the number of species in each class in each of the three districts. Here Phillips could show that for most classes of animal (7 out of 9) the Devon fossils fell between the two comparative areas. The sum of the differences between each district confirmed the intermediate position of the Devon rocks. Satisfied with the method, as it gave the results he anticipated, Phillips repeated it at a finer resolution attempting to order the rocks of sub-regions of Devon and Cornwall. However, he admitted that local circumstances, such as the prevalence of limestones, could seriously affect the result. He obtained the following ranking, creating a scale of time from the sum of the differences:
Upper Palaeozoic
Interval 316
North Cornish period
Interval 132
Later North Devon period (anterior to Carbonaceous group)
Interval 264
South Devon period
Interval 374
Lower Palaeozoic
But when he came to check this arrangement, expecting similar species to be largely restricted to adjacent periods, he found numerous inconsistencies. Whilst, for example, a large number of the South Devon corals had Lower Palaeozoic affinities, the brachiopods were as a whole more analogous of the Upper Palaeozoic. Phillips had hoped that by this simple and logical process the gross stratigraphy of Devon would be revealed; but the methodology failed.
The problem for Phillips in presenting a bulk analysis of species numbers, was that these numbers might more reflect the labour put into gathering species, than the true number occurring.[90] As each Devon collector tended to be geographically restricted in terms of his collecting activity, the species lists for each area were likely to reflect the industry and biases of the local collector. Austen, for example, collected from the quarries around Newton Bushel; his research focused on extending fossil lists. The rocks of Newton Bushel fell within what Phillips designated the ‘Plymouth Group’. In terms of number of species this Group accounted for nearly 50% of all those collected. Of all the Devon collectors only Austen would progress in geological circles. De la Beche had a high regard for him intellectually.[91] Since the method of locating new species relied to a large degree on the connoisseurship of the collector it could be argued that the dominance of the Plymouth Group in the fossil lists was really a reflection of Austen’s dominance as a collector. Austen could also use his considerable wealth to further his fossil gathering. Of the other collectors, Pattison and Holl contributed Petherwin fossils; Harding’s material came from around Barnstaple; and Williams, who lived on the edge of the Mendips and did not have the luxury of patronising local quarrymen, collected from North Devon. Other collectors, such as the impoverished Cornish coastguard Charles William Peach, neither had the wealth to patronise quarrymen and artisan collectors, the education to fully interpret his finds, nor leisure for long sojourns in the field.
Phillips was aware of some of these biases in his own work including his use of the Mountain Limestone as an upper comparative standard. The limited nature of its lithology, produced a fauna unrepresentative of the period as a whole; more material was needed from shales and other rock types.[92] But there were other biases which Phillips ignored such as the availability of exposures. Inland, quarries had been essential to collecting. These, however, were most prevalent in the hard rocks used for building and road construction, and lime-rich rocks utilised for agriculture. Strata which were particularly favoured for these purposes would be exploited in numerous quarries and thus increase the chances of representing the breadth of the fauna. There were also commercial operations where fossil content was integral to extraction – such as the industry then quarrying and polishing coral rich limestones for the production of decorative tables, and so on, which would give an over-representation of limestone fossils.
Phillips’ final analysis, however, relied much less on the blind manipulation of figures, involving instead comparisons of the occurrences of specific species with known Upper, or Lower, Palaeozoic affinities. From his own work, and that of Murchison and his followers, he drew up a list of 76 species occurring in the region, which appeared aligned to one of these two groups.[93] These would surely provide the long called for zoological key to the Devonian problem. This immediately showed an affinity between South Devon, Eifel and Bensberg (though both of the latter were predominantly calcareous rocks). This might also have reflected collector bias, however, as Austen had been keen to seek out comparative species, being the only Devon collector to have acquired a large collection of Eifel fossils. All districts, however, showed mixtures of fossils of seemingly Upper and Lower Palaeozoic affinity. Even at the finest level of resolution, Phillips’ analysis had provided no reliable results.
Phillips’ statistics of collecting
To understand this Phillips tried to explain the apparent deficiencies of his methodology by enumerating the statistics of collecting:
The chances of occurrence of identical species at different localities in the same range of strata are much less than is commonly imagined, and in a considerable degree depend on the earnestness and completeness of the search.[94]
He considered the probability of finding the same fossil species at each of two sites; his reasoning was as follows.
If two districts contained identical species randomly distributed throughout rocks which were equally exposed and therefore equally productive, then the following variables can be defined:
N = the total number of species occurring in the region as a whole
n1 = the number of species found in district 1.
n2 = the number of species found in district 2.
d = the probability of finding the same species in each area.[95]
Thus n1/N gives the probability of finding any one of those species already discovered in district 1.
The probability of finding the same species in both areas is:
d = (n1/N)*(n2/N) = (n1*n2)/N2
and the actual number of identical species found in the two areas is:
d*N = (n1*n2)/N
Thus if
d = (100/200)*(100/200) = 1/4
then d*N = 50
In reality one would not know N but would have figures for both n1 and n2, and also therefore d*N. N can then be calculated.
N = (n1*n2)/(d*N)
Thus if n1 = 166; n2 = 166; and d*N = 57
then N = (166 x 166)/57 = 483[96]
Thus if both South Devon and Eifel have each produced 166 fossils, with 57 identical forms, as Phillips determined, then the total number of species occurring is 483. Phillips used this to suggest that whenever one-third proportion of the species at two equally productive places is identical the affinity between the two sites is strong.
Assuming that N is 500, Phillips calculated the expected number of identical forms likely to be found between his subregions, thus:
South Devon (n1=166) & Upper North Devon (n2=72), therefore d*N=23.9.
South Devon (n1=166) & North Cornwall (n2=67), therefore d*N=22.25.
In fact the numbers of identical species actually occurring in these two comparisons was 20 and 18 respectively. Phillips made no comment on this but since these figures are lower than expected he might infer a lack of affinity. The true figures can be used to calculate N as 598 and 618 respectively.
Phillips also compared North Cornwall and Upper North Devon giving a prediction of 9.6 identical species found, whereas in reality the figure was 21. This he suggested meant a strong affinity between them, giving an N of 230 (Phillips says ‘about 250’).
In applying his mathematical analyses Phillips had to make assumptions regarding the purity of the data which can be derived from natural phenomena and the collecting process. He knew any one rock at two distant places would show spatial variability in its productivity; particular concentrations of certain families; and be unequally explored.[97] Such mathematical purity would ignore the differing probabilities of finding the poorly preserved, small, difficult to distinguish (perhaps from similar species), unfashionable, obscure, and so on. Far from clarifying the situation the generalities of Phillips’ tables were more likely to disguise interesting species distributions.
Phillips believed that N could be found and throughout his book encouraged collectors to continue the search for new species: ‘I have added some notices of localities, which, if well searched by diligent hands, may probably yield good fruits’.[98]
The resemblance of the fossil figured to Cypricardia impressa, of Sowerby, is such as to make me suppose that further research and better specimens that my fragments from Devonshire may prove them identical; but there is some difference…[99]
‘Nearly every part of this region will repay further research’.[100]
‘Altogether this series [Pilton Group] has yielded by far the largest proportion of the fossils of North Devon; and it is probable that further search would at once discover many more species, and prove the nearly uniform character in respect of organic contents of the whole range of the same beds’.[101]
For the vast majority of collectors, who placed a premium on rarity, Palaeozoic Fossils became a connoisseur’s guide: ‘It seems a well defined species, but I have only one specimen, which was found with several other rarities’;[102] ‘It has rarely occurred to me in South Devon, and perhaps not at all in any other district of England’;[103] ‘At present I am acquainted with one instance of the occurrence of Clymenia in the British Isles out of the district under review’.[104] The book finished by giving collectors a listing of rock groups and localities, and the fossils so far obtained from them.
Palaeozoic Fossils clearly reflects Phillips’ diplomatic and hesitant approach to publicising his own ideas together with the developing and controversial nature of contemporary Palaeozoic geology. His comprehensive and authoritative volume had on publication become merely a statement of work in progress. Phillips had believed that it was possible to collect and figure all the known species but, as research progressed, a once apparently barren region became extremely productive with perhaps only 60% of its fossils known. Matters were further complicated by the mechanism for viewing the fossils – so dependent on the whim of collectors and the inadequate resources of Phillips. The resolution of collecting was absolutely dependent on the collectors; Phillips’ own fieldwork was also constrained by time.[105] His statistical interlude had superimposed the purity of mathematics onto the inconsistencies of nature; the approach might work for plant geographers but not for the study of ancient rocks. Perception had been replaced by the fashion for numbers. Within a few years he knew that much of what he had done would not stand the test of time. As he admitted to De la Beche, three years later:
In 1841 came forth the Palaeozoa Damnoniensia which contains views some of which were assailed & are now adopted by the same pen; & others which I believe to be of general (mathematicè loqu) value, but which none of this race of Palaeontologists are likely even to look at, because they contain some uncommon multiplications & ratios. You see I can laugh at what I have done – perhaps others may do the same.[106]
Phillips’ concerns for environmental influences on species distribution prevented any effective pursuit of strata identified by characteristic fossils – however many were required. Had Phillips’ sufficient funds to undertake his fieldwork independently, in the style he had adopted in Yorkshire, more might have been achieved. As it was, his research was far from comprehensive, it utilised methods which were largely new to him, and sidelined him into a palaeontological appendix. Phillips was first and foremost a field geologist and stratigrapher; work for De la Beche cast him principally as a palaeontologist and museum worker.
Collectors continued to send in fossils to Phillips. Harding sent a small collection from North Devon, of which Phillips remarked to De la Beche: ‘It is interesting, & not less so because it has almost no novelty, but several pretty repetitions’;[107] perhaps n was approaching N. The following February 1842, Austen finished a paper for the Geological Society’s Transactions which was to list all the Devon species in his collection; he asked Phillips for a list of those awaiting representation in the supplement.[108] Austen was still trying to achieve n = N.[109]
[1] Morrell (1988a) gives an exemplary account of Phillips’ career development with the Survey up to 1841, including some thoughts on his use of fossils and involvement in the Palaeozoic debate. This chapter for the purposes of context includes some discussion of Phillips’ career but remains focused on the act of fossil collecting.
[2] De la Beche’s (1830) tables, along with the those of Taylor (1829), are a realisation of those concerns regarding the vertical and horizontal distribution of fossils which caused Smith so much uncertainty and had their roots in contemporary concepts of the origin of species. They also make a tentative link with growing numeracy in natural history, a subject eloquently explored by Browne (1983) and Rudwick (1978). The story for geology, however, is only partly told. Phillips’ (1830) paper was derived from a visit to Le Havre.
[3] De la Beche, London to Phillips, York, 22 January 1830, OUM Phillips DLB1.
[4] Phillips, York to De la Beche, London, 30 January 1830, NMW.
[5] Morrell (1988a:12) analyses Lyell’s opinion of Phillips and his work.
[6] See McCartney (1977:50) and Rudwick (1974b) for De la Beche’s criticism of Principles; also Porter (1978:823) for contemporary criticism of De la Beche.
[7] Rudwick (1985:100-5).
[8] De la Beche, Tiverton to Phillips, York, 27 February 1835, OUM Phillips DLB3. Rumours regarding Deshayes abilities were rife – Danish geologist Dr Henrick Henricksen Beck (1799 – 1863) considered him ‘as very far from being a first rate conchologist!!’ Lonsdale to De la Beche, 30 November 1835, NMW 891.
[9] Lyell’s belief that fossils should be the province of the zoologist was to gain ground over the next decade, culminating in De la Beche’s appointment of Edward Forbes. Fitton and Buckland were already encouraging botanists to take responsibility for fossil plants.
[10] John Lindley (5 February 1799 – 1 November 1865), Prof. of Botany, University College, London.
[11] Rudwick (1985:90).
[12] De la Beche, Tiverton to Phillips, York, 27 February 1835, OUM Phillips DLB3. Such beliefs were widespread. Up and coming geologist, Robert Austen, for example, also trying to identify Carboniferous strata in Devon, echoed De la Beche’s scepticism: ‘I am not as you know one of those who would settle any such question by reference to organic remains’. Austen, London to De la Beche, Swansea, 15 December 1837, NMW 26. Rudwick (1985) has given a definitive account of the controversy surrounding Devonian geology at this time in which De la Beche and Phillips played a full part. The emphasis here is to explore changing attitudes to fossil collecting which underpinned developments in the Geological Survey.
[13] Phillips (1836).
[14] Fifth Report of the BAAS, (1835), xxvi.
[15] Phillips to De la Beche, 1 April 1835, NMW.
[16] Phillips to De la Beche, 1 April 1835, NMW. A comment no doubt aimed at Lyell. There was much shared humour amongst the Survey men regarding Lyell’s capabilities. As Ramsay remarked after he had joined them in the field: ‘By the way Lyell is not at all unjolly in the field though sufficiently helpless at field work’. Ramsay, Swanage to De la Beche, 27 April 1851, NMW 1806. See also McCartney (1977:52).
[17] De la Beche, Falmouth to Phillips, 31 May 1837, OUM Phillips DLB6.
[18] Phillips to De la Beche, 1 April 1835, NMW.
[19] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 4 November 1837, NMW.
[20] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 4 November 1837, NMW.
[21] De la Beche, Tavistock to Phillips, 13 November 1837, OUM Phillips DLB10.
[22] This issue came to a head in 1842 when the BAAS appointed a committee, which included Phillips, to construct rules for nomenclature including that of priority, See Annals & Mag. Nat. Hist., 11, 259-75.
[23] Lonsdale to De la Beche, 30 November 1835, NMW 891.
[24] Lyell to De la Beche, 5 April 1836, NMW 900.
[25] De la Beche, Helston to Phillips, York, 6 November 1836, OUM Phillips DLB4.
[26] Phillips to De la Beche, 1 April 1835, NMW.
[27] De la Beche, Falmouth to Phillips, 31 May 1837, OUM Phillips DLB6.
[28] Rudwick (1985) provides the best biographical accounts of the collectors and local geologists in the region, this will not be duplicated here.
[29] Note from David Williams, Geological Society to Phillips, Kings College, 19 May 1837, OUM Phillips 1837/25.
[30] De la Beche, Tavistock, to Phillips, 13 November 1837, OUM Phillips DLB10.
[31] Austen, Newton Bushel to Phillips, 24 January 1838, OUM 1838/2. Austen to Phillips, 25 March 1838, OUM 1838/9.
[32] Samuel Rowles Pattison (d. 27.11.1901), a solicitor.
[33] De la Beche, Tavistock to Phillips, 29 October 1837, OUM Phillips DLB9; De la Beche, Tavistock to Phillips, 13 November 1837, OUM Phillips DLB10.
[34] Williams, Bleadon to De la Beche, Tavistock, 21 November 1837, NMW 2097. De la Beche, Tavistock to Phillips, 5 December 1837, OUM Phillips DLB11.
[35] Austen, Newton Bushel to Phillips, York, 18 January 1838, OUM Phillips 1838/1. Devon collectors also saw Phillips as a potential source of comparative mountain limestone material which they sought to acquire through exchange. See, for example, Austen, Newton Bushel to Phillips, 24 January 1838, OUM 1838/2. Pattison, Launceston to Phillips, 14 January 1841, OUM 1841/4.
[36] De la Beche, Swansea to Phillips, 12 December 1837, OUM Phillips DLB12.
[37] De la Beche, Tavistock to Phillips, 5 December 1837, OUM Phillips DLB11.
[38] De la Beche, Swansea to Phillips, 5 February 1838, OUM Phillips DLB14.
[39] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 26 January 1839, NMW.
[40] Phillips, London to De la Beche, 6 March 1838, OUM Phillips DLB18 (Phillips’ copy).
[41] De la Beche to Treasury, 17 March 1838, OUM Phillips DLB19.
[42] De la Beche wrote to Francis Baring, MP, at the Treasury on the 17 March 1838 requesting £250 for Phillips Devon work, with supporting references on Phillips’ ability from Buckland, Sedgwick and Whewell who was president of the Geological Society, NMW 387 (De la Beche’s copy letter).
[43] De la Beche to Phillips, 16 April 1838, OUM Phillips DLB23.
[44] In the late summer of 1839, Austen returned from a trip to France with 600 – 700 Transition fossils, and in 1840, just before Phillips entered the field and before the two had met, he exchanged material for well localised ‘Silurian’ (according to De Verneuil) fossils from the Rhine and Eifel [Boulogne] districts. Austen, Newton to Phillips, 28 September 1838, OUM 1838/47. De la Beche saw Austen as a reliable ally and remarked to Phillips ‘He is a thorough good fellow, very talented and in everyway the right thing. He will work with you in all honesty and good faith – something now-a-days’, 21 April 1839, OUM Phillips DLB30.
[45] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 26 January 1839, NMW.
[46] De la Beche, Swansea to Phillips, 23 June 1839, OUM Phillips DLB32.
[47] It would not be until September 1840 that Phillips could make this claim, having had to carry the intervening expense himself. Phillips, York to De la Beche, Wednesday 30 September 1840, NMW.
[48] Phillips to De la Beche, 16 June 1840, NMW. This debt was finally removed in October 1840, Phillips, York to De la Beche, Cardiff, 12 October 1840, NMW.
[49] De la Beche to Phillips, 18 September 1839, OUM Phillips DLB33. In this it appears that De la Beche was successful and funds were paid into Phillips’ bank the following spring, Phillips, Barnstaple, to De la Beche, London, 28 March 1840, NMW. De la Beche also succeeded in enabling Phillips to claim the unpaid portion of Smith’s pension, Phillips to De la Beche, 8 December 1840, NMW.
[50] Williams, Bleadon to Phillips, York, 29 November 1839, OUM Phillips 1839/50; 26 December 1839, OUM Phillips 1839/58; 27 May 1840, OUM Phillips 1840/24; 30 June 1840, OUM Phillips 1840/30.
[51] Lonsdale, London to Phillips, York, 8 December 1839, OUM Phillips 1839/54.
[52] Williams, Bleadon to Phillips, York, 26 December 1839, OUM Phillips 1839/58.
[53] Sanders was also known to De la Beche, having prepared a map on cholera, fever and geology in 1832 for his Report on the state of Bristol and other large towns (1845); see footnotes in Secord (1986:note 70). De la Beche’s comment on hearing of Phillips’ liaison: ‘You will have a famous companion in Sanders’.
[54] Austen, Guildford to De la Beche, [1841FJN should be 1840], NMW 38.
[55] De la Beche, London to Phillips, York, 26 February 1840, OUM Phillips DLB34.
[56] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 22 February 1840, NMW.
[57] Phillips, Chugleigh to De la Beche, 20 April 1840, NMW.
[58] Phillips, Chugleigh to De la Beche, 20 April 1840, NMW. Phillips, Taunton to De la Beche, 27 April 1840, NMW.
[59] Phillips (1841:v).
[60] Phillips (1841:vi).
[61] Phillips (1841:188).
[62] Phillips (1841:195).
[63] Phillips (1841:29) describing Cyathocrinus (?) macrodactylus.
[64] De la Beche, Cardiff to Phillips, 2 July 1840, OUM Phillips DLB41.
[65] De la Beche, London to Phillips, Devon, 25 March 1840, OUM Phillips DLB35.
[66] Phillips, Launceston to De la Beche, London, 6 April 1840; Phillips, York to De la Beche, 30 January 1841, NMW.
[67] Phillips, Taunton to De la Beche, 27 April 1840 [second letter], NMW.
[68] De la Beche, Bridgend to Phillips, York, 3 May 1840, OUM Phillips DLB37.
[69] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 30 January 1841, NMW.
[70] De la Beche, Bridgend to Phillips, York, 3 May 1840, OUM DLB37.
[71] Phillips, to De la Beche, 20 October 1840 and 20 November 1840, NMW; De la Beche to Phillips, 4 October 1840, OUM Phillips DLB42.
[72] Phillips, London, to De la Beche, 1 December 1840, (Phillips’ draft copy), OUM Phillips DLB45.
[73] Phillips to De la Beche, 22 May 1841, NMW.
[74] Phillips to De la Beche, 31 May 1841, NMW.
[75] Phillips to De la Beche, 31 May 1841, NMW. Phillips, Llandovery to De la Beche, 25 December 1841, NMW.
[76] Phillips (1841:x).
[77] Phillips (1841:182).
[78] Phillips, York to De la Beche, 31 January 1841, NMW.
[79] Phillips (1841:43) on Posidonia – ‘It is very difficult, however, to be satisfied with any distinction among the numerous forms which these fossils exhibit, in endless variety’
[80] For the Brachiopoda he proposes a new classification of genera but does not use it – ‘I propose to make no use of the new terms which shall embarrass the reader who prefers any other view’. His designations of crinoids, for example, are littered with question marks; though such problems were in part a result of there being no definitive reference collections together with ambiguous figures and descriptions. Phillips (1841:31) on Adelocrinus hystrix – a provisional genus: ‘Hardly any fossil among the many difficultly intelligible fragments which fill the rocks of Devonshire, has caused me more trouble… supposing it to be a crinite… I give it a name which will affect only itself’. The urge to be comprehensive meant that such material, however, unreliable had to be included. Where a previous author was dead, such as with his former curatorial counterpart in Bristol, Phillips lost his timidity: ‘Miller’s figures… are like these; but his reference of the columns to the bodies cannot be depended upon’ (Phillips (1841:32) on Cyathocrinus (?) nodulosus.
[81] Phillips (1841:52) remarks on fossil Brachiopoda: ‘The inconvenience of a single term for a vast heap of disagreeing forms has been removed, but there is great fear of our falling into an opposite degree of confusion from the adoption of genera insufficiently examined, or founded on too few examples’. It is interesting how this contradicts Phillips actions regarding the designation of the new crinoid genus Adelocrinus (see above footnote).
[82] Phillips (1841:xi).
[83] Rudwick (1985:373); Rudwick (1978) exposes the development of Deshayes’ and Lyell’s numerical methods.
[84] Browne (1983:95); Secord (1986a:133).
[85] Charlesworth’s arguments are discussed by Strickland (1837). By suggesting the mixing of deposits and faunas, Charlesworth was giving the earliest account of what Flessa (1993) refers to as ‘time-averaging’, and is in advance of taphonomic research (see, for example, Cadée (1991:3-21)). It is yet another example of the environmentalist approach to geology becoming prevalent at this time, and which Torrens (1993:268) dates to De la Beche’s cartoon Duria antiquior. Rehbock (1983) suggests that the palaeoenvironmentalism [my word not his] of the 1840s has its roots in statistical biology.
[86] Phillips (1840a:490) describes the system of ratios used by Deshayes; but see Morrell (1988a:12-3) for Phillips opposition to Lyell’s methods.
[87] Phillips (1840a:491). See Morrell (1988a:11) for Phillips’ earlier proclamation of this principle in 1835.
[88] Morrell (1989:329) has already made reference to Phillips’ use of lists but I would debate whether the novelty was all Phillips’. Phillips, as Smith’s assistant’ was listing fossils in 1817 and it was Smith and not Phillips who rejected the identification of the Kelloways at Scarborough on the basis of a handful of characteristic fossils. Phillips’ only innovation was in obtaining comprehensive lists.
[89] Phillips could only suggest that this framework had value in Europe; the tropics were still relatively unexplored and the extant fauna there when compared with the extinct fauna in Europe (elephants, lions, etc) suggested that such broad generalisations might come unstuck. Phillips knew that such intellectual inventions were more likely to stand the test of time if they were built on a secure foundation rather than speculation. Phillips (1840a&b).
[90] Fitton had remarked upon Taylor’s (1829) much earlier attempts at fossil numeracy, commenting that the proportion of known species is ‘in great measure accidental – the industry or success of collectors, and the greater or less extent to which the contents of the conchiferous strata are brought to light by human labour, or naturally disclosed: and all these sources of inequality must for a long time affect the different strata so unequally, that any general inferences now derived from the enumeration of species must be received with considerable qualification’. Fitton, W.H. 1829. Presidential address, Proc. Geol. Soc., 1, 129.
[91] Phillips even used Austen’s descriptions and figures without reference to the specimens himself (see Phillips 1841:135-137).
[92] Phillips (1841:172): ‘In fact, it is chiefly from the limestones of that series, that the species have been largely and diligently collected, and neither the shales above nor those below the great mass of the limestone have been fully examined’.
[93] Phillips (1841:173).
[94] Phillips (1841:178).
[95] These variables are not exactly as used by Phillips but simplify explanation of his methodology.
[96] Phillips (1841:178).
[97] Phillips (1841:179).
[98] Phillips (1841:xi).
[99] Phillips (1841:37) on Cypricardia impressa
[100] Phillips (1841:182) referring to the likelihood of gathering new species.
[101] Phillips (1841:186).
[102] Phillips (1841:49) on Avicula anisota.
[103] Phillips (1841:75) on Spirifer disjuncta.
[104] Phillips (1841:124). – the specimen in question came from Ireland and was in Gilbertson’s collection.
[105] Phillips had expressed an intention that his visit be zoological and not geological. Rather than collect from individual measured sections his finds could only be localised to individual quarries and coastal sites. The aim was to increase the species list and his knowledge of the geographical distribution of forms, on the assumption that geographical variation would reveal geological relationships. Large groups of rocks were treated as uniform for the purposes of comparison.
[106] Phillips, London to De la Beche, 13 January 1844, NMW.
[107] Phillips to De la Beche, 10 September 1841, NMW.
[108] Austen, Guilford to Phillips, York, 27 February 1842, OUM Phillips 1842/4.1.
[109] That is: number of fossil species known (and inevitably in collections) = number of species actually existing in the field.
Simon Knell 