Morris and Lycett's monograph is one of the classic earlier Palaeontographical Society monographs. A local doctor, John Lycett, built up a large collection of fossils from the complex of quarries then being worked around Minchinhampton Common, south-east of Stroud, Gloucestershire, and in this monograph described them with the help of geologist John Morris. The so-called Minchinhampton Beds are found at the top of the Middle Bathonian Taynton Limestone Formation of the Great Oolite Group, a complex of oolite shoals that was clearly sufficiently stabilized at times to allow a rich fauna of bivalves and gastropods to become established. There are few exposures in the vicinity now and new material is difficult to find, so this monograph provides an important window on the varied molluscan faunas. Volume 1 consists of three parts. The first, dated 1850, covers cephalopods and gastropods (and a few serpulids) and has 15 plates. Part 2 (1853) is the first of two parts concerned with bivalves and has eight plates (confusingly, it starts again with page 1 and the plates are numbered 1–8), whilst the third part (1854) continues with the bivalves and has seven plates; both pagination and plate numbers run on from Part 2. Volume 2 describes and figures mainly bivalves, together with some gastropods and two ammonite species. By then, too, Lycett had realized that many of the Yorkshire species that he had figured in Volume 1 were from the equivalents of the Inferior Oolite Group farther south and this was corrected. The reprint is faithful to the original, and the text and plates have been reproduced to the exact sizes of the originals. Whilst it does not matter that print from the next page of text can be seen through the pages (indeed the same is true, but to a lesser extent, in the original), it does matter in the case of the plates. Why could not the plates and plate descriptions have been printed on one side only of the paper (as in the original)? The text on the reverse and figures of the succeeding plate visible through each plate form a disturbing background. The extra few pages would have added little to the cost, but greatly improved the result. I also have reservations about the quality of reproduction of the plates. They all have a light grey background which means that some originally light figures have almost totally disappeared in the reproduction. This greyness has darkened all the tones, so that dark greys become almost black and detail is sometimes hard to discern. Readers are also referred to Cox and Arkell (1948–1950). Not only does this work list all the figures in the original monograph and update the nomenclature, but it cites details of the specimen numbers, repository and locality details lacking in the original description. It also corrects the original stratigraphical assignments. In sum, although the reprinting of these early volumes is to be welcomed, I hope the quality issues, alluded to above, can be addressed.