EASTMAN: DESCHirTIONS OF ROLCA FISHES. 9 



niste, philosophe, et matliematicien, et, cultivant dcs sciences si diverses, 

 il s'illustra dans toutes." ^ 



Fracastoro resembled his illustrious contemporary Leonardo in his 

 ability to deduce sound conclusions from observed facts, and in his 

 habit of appealing directly to nature rather than to authority for 

 answer to the problems confronting him. His opinions in regard to 

 the nature of fossils, a variety of which were brought to his attention 

 during the reconstruction of a citadel in Verona in 1517, are set forth 

 very clearly in a description of the Calceolarian Museum,^ a work fre- 

 quently referred to by the older writers, and also in an historical account 

 of Verona by Torello Saraina.' Fracastoro ridicules the notion that 

 fossils are the reliquiae of the Mosaic deluge, or were formed within the 

 rocks through the agency of a plastic force, and states his reasons for 

 believing them to be the remains of plants and animals which inhabited 

 the sea at a period when the continents were submerged. Had these 

 sensible views been heeded, much useless discussion which continued 

 throughout the succeeding two centuries would have been avoided. 



A brief notice concerning the fossil fishes of Monte Bolca, the earliest 

 in which they are specifically referred to, was inserted by the celebrated 

 botanist Mattioli * in his fourth edition of the Materia Medica of 

 Dioscorides, which he commentated and illustrated in 1552. He also 

 quotes the statements of Polybius, in Book XXXIV. of his History, re- 



1 Op. cit., II. p. 101. 



2 Chiocco, A., and Ceruti, B., Musae ra Franc. Calceolari iun. Veronensis. 

 Verona, 1622. The passage entitled " Magni Fracastorii Sententia de proposita 

 quaestione," which occurs on p. 407 of tliis work, is quoted in extenso by Vallisneri 

 in iiis De' corpi man'jii che su' monti si trovano (Venice, 1721), and is referred to by 

 various other authors prior to Lioy. A figure evidently of Holocentrum macroce- 

 chalum is given on p. 428 of this work. 



3 Saraina, T., De Origine et Amplitudine Civitatis Veronae. Verona, 1530. 

 See also on Fracastoro the following : Barbarini, E., Girolanio Fracastoro e le 



sue opere. Verona, 1894. — Caverni, R., Storia del metodo sperimentale in Italia. 

 Florence, 1893. — Holden, E. S., The. Precursors of Copernicus (Pop. Sci. Monthly, 

 LXIV. p. 316), 1904. — bioy, P., Fracastoro e le sue idee divinatrici della Palcon- 

 tologia (Atti R. Istit. Veneto, ser. 7, IX. p. 1098), 1898. — Meneghini, G., Dei meriti 

 dei Veniti nelle Gcologia. Pisa, 1866. — Menken, 0., De vita, moribus, scriptis 

 meritisque H. Fracastori Veronensis. Leipzic, 1731. — Omboni, G., Cenni sulla 

 storia della Geologia. Padua, 1894. — Stoppani, A., Della preminenza e priorita 

 degli studj geologici in Italia. Milan, 1868. 



* Mattioli, P. A., Commentarii secondo aucti, in libros sex Pedaci Dioscoridis 

 de Medica Materia, 4th ed., Venice, 1552; 5th, ibid., 1558. Tlie reference occurs 

 in the Introduction to Book V., and is wanting in earlier editions of this work. 



