But there are some still remaining, to which we have objections to oppose; such as, for exam- ple, his fourth argument, which is drawn from the absence of organic attachment between the shell and the animal, a cir- cumstance tending to indicate that the two are foreign to each other.

We quite agree with those naturalists who recognise this want of attachment ; in fact there is no other connection be- tween the shell and the animal, than that of contact, and this argument has always been regarded as one of the most valid : we can, however, meet it by another, namely, that the true constructor of the shell, supposing it not to be the poulp, did not adhere to it either ; since, contrary to what we observe in other shells, there are upon the argonaut no traces of attach- ment, or, in fact, of any muscular impression.

This remark, moreover, is not our own ; it was made to us by Cuvier ten years ago, in a conversation with him on this subject.

To this observation it has sometimes been objected, that the argonaut is evidently an internal shell.

We confess that we should have some difficulty in picturing to ourselves an internal shell of this description, so enroulee", so symme- trical and diaphanous, and possessing ribs and tubercles, and, in short, so little analogous to all internal shells, whatever may be the order of Molhisca to which they belong.