"Thus the encrinites, the belemnites, the orthoceratites, the ostracites, the terebratules, etc., all animals which habitually live at the bottom, found for the most part among the fossils deposited on the point of the globe in question, are unimpeachable witnesses which attest that this same place was once part of the bottom or great depths of the sea." He then attempts to prove, and does so satisfactorily, that the shells he refers to are what he calls deep-water (pelagiennes).

He proves the truth of his thesis by the following facts: 1.

We are already familiar with a marine Gryphaea, and different Terebratulae, also marine shell-fish, which do not, however, live near shore.2.Also the greatest depth which has been reached with the rake or the dredge is not destitute of molluscs, since we find there a great number which only live at this depth, and without instruments to reach and bring them up we should know nothing of the _cones_, _olives_, Mitra, many species of Murex, Strombus, etc.

3.
Finally, since the discovery of a living Encrinus, drawn up on a sounding line from a great depth, and where lives the animal or polyp in question, it is not only possible to assure ourselves that at this depth there are other living animals, but on the contrary we are strongly bound to think that other species of the same genus, and probably other animals of different genera, also live at the same depths.

All this leads one to admit, with Bruguiere,[78] the existence of deep-water shell-fish and polyps, which, like him, I distinguish from littoral shells and polyps.
"The two sorts of monuments of which I have above spoken, namely, littoral and deep-sea fossils, may be, and often should be, found separated by different beds in the same bank or in the same mountains, since they have been deposited there at very different epochs.