PALEONTOLOGICAL DISCOVERY. 371 



fined by John Gesner in his work on fossils in 1758, and was afterward 

 extensively used. Paleontology is comparatively a modern term, hav- 

 ing only come into use only within the last half century. It was intro- 

 duced about 1830, and soon was generally adopted in France and Eng- 

 land ; but in Germany it met with less favor, though used to some 

 extent. 



It would be interesting, too, did time permit, to trace the various 

 opinions and superstitions held at different times in regard to some of 

 the more common fossils, for example the Ammonite or the Belem- 

 nite — of their supposed celestial origin ; of their use as medicine by 

 the ancients, and in the East to-day ; of their marvelous power as 

 charms among the Romans, and still among the American Indians. It 

 would be instructive, also, to compare the various views expressed by 

 students in science concerning some of the stranger extinct forms — for 

 instance, the Nummulites, among Protozoa ; the Rudistes, among Mol- 

 lusks ; or the Mosasaurus, among reptiles. Dissimilar as such views 

 were, they indicate in many cases gropings after truth — natural steps 

 in the increase of knowledge. 



The third period in the history of paleontology, which, as I have 

 said, began with Cuvier and Lamarck at the beginning of the present 

 century, forms a natural epoch extending through six decades. The 

 definite characteristics of this period, as stated, were dominant during 

 all this time, and the progress of paleontology was commensurate with 

 that of intelligence and culture. 



For the first half of this period, the mai-velous discoveries in the 

 Paris Basin excited astonishment and absorbed attention ; but the real 

 significance and value of the facts made known by Cuvier, Lamarck, 

 and William Smith were not appreciated. There was still a strong 

 tendency to regard fossils merely as interesting objects of natural his- 

 tory, as in the previous period, and not as the key to profounder prob- 

 lems in the earth's history. Many prominent geologists were still en- 

 deavoring to identify formations in different countries by their min- 

 eral characters rather than by the fossils imbedded in them. Such 

 names as " Old Red Sandstone " and " New Red Sandstone " were 

 given in accordance with this opinion. Humboldt, for example, at- 

 tempted to compare the formations of South America and Europe by 

 their mineral features, and doubted the value of fossils for this pur- 

 pose. In 1823 he wrote as follows : "Are we justified in concluding 

 that all formations are characterized by particular species ? that the 

 fossil shells of the chalk, the muschelkalk, the Jura limestone, and the 

 Alpine limestones are all different ? I think this would be pushing the 

 induction much too far." * Jameson still thought minerals more im- 

 portant than fossils for characterizing formations ; while Bakewell, 

 later yet, defines paleontology as comprising " fossil zoology and fossil 

 * "Essai Geognostiquc sur le Gisement des Eoches," p. 41. 



