676 DE. ^V. B. CAllPENTEE ON THE STEUCTUKE, PHYSIOLOGY, AND 



am indebted for several references to the authors named in this summary), 1 think it 

 right to cite the c\-idence of it in some detail. 



The ' Lithophylacii Britannici Ichnographia ' of Edttaed Llhuyd' (1609) is a work 

 which, the more it is examined, leaves a stronger and yet stronger impression of the 

 mdustry and sagacity of its author. To elucidate the nature of Fossils by the com])a- 

 rison of their forms with those of existing Animals and Plants, — familiar as the principle 

 now seems to us, — had not been systematically attempted (so far as I am aware) by any 

 previous Naturalist ; and no one who may bestow a little attention on the contents of 

 the ' Lithophylacium ' can fail to perceive that it is something much more valuable than 

 a mere collector's catalogue, and deals with questions far more important than those of 

 nomenclature. Lliiuyd's sixth class, that of Crustacea ^'xndulafa, includes all the 

 fossil remains which we should now refer to the Class Echixodermata ; and in the 

 general observations at the head of this division he expressly says, — " unde ad banc 

 classem retulimus omnes lapides ejusmodi materia conflatos ; sive ii ad Echinos spectent, 

 . . . sive ad Stellas marinas, ut Astron-hiza, Astropodium, Asteria, Entrochus, Volvola, 

 Appendicula, &c. " (these being the names which he assigned to various Crinoidal 

 fragments). Further, in the supplemental Epistohe contained in the same volume, we 

 find an express discussion on the relations of the Encrinus of Lachmuxu, the Entrochus 

 of Agricola, and the Asteria of Plot, to existhig forms of Sea-stars, as well as of the 

 separated parts just named to each other ; and it is quite obvious that he was perfectly 

 satisfied that these fossils were neither minerals nor plants, but stony ossicles of Sea-stars. 

 He not only put forth this conviction with yet greater earnestness in a subsequent 

 Memoir^, which seems to have escaped the notice of the historians just cited, but even 

 distinguished ^?^f(^f?o?^ as the particular Sea-star to which the Ckixoidea are most nearly 

 related. His statements on this point are so remarkable as to deserve being quoted in 



' The dedication of tliis work to Makiin Listee is in the foUo-n-ing terms, alike honourable to both parties : 

 — " Erudito imprimis viro D. Makiixo Listee, Doctori Medico seriptis et praxi claro, Societatis Ecgios Socio 

 illustrissimo ; Musei Oxoniensis, post ipsum cujiis nomen prosfert nobilissimum Ashmolum, fautori primario ; 

 Bibliotheca; ibidem physicoe ct antiquarios fundatori munifico ; fossiliiim Britannias insula^ indagatori primo et 

 fcehci ; prsccptori suo indulgentissimo et MecKnati a;ternum colendo ; banc qualemcuuque Lithophylacii Bri- 

 tannici Ichnographiam, officii et gratitudinis ergo, humillimc offert ac dedieat Edtaedus LuiBirs.'" — Of the 

 csteem in which the labours of Lluutd were held by his contemporaries, a very interesting record is contained 

 in the following notification : — 



Hujus Lihrl cenhnn ctvjijintl tanthm Ed-cmplaria impressa stmt, hnpensis infrasrrij>torum 



Illtjsteiss. ViKomiM, 

 D. Baronis Summers, summi Angliie Cancellarii. D. T. Bohmson. 



D. Comitis dc Dorset, &c. D. H. Sloan. 



D. C. Montaijve, Cancellarii Scaccarii. D. Fr. Aston. 



D. Isaac! Newton. D. Geoffray, Paiisiensis. 



D. M. Lister. \ 



- ' Prajlectio de Stcllis Marinis Oceani Britannici, ncc non dc Asteriarum, Entrochorum, ct Encrinorum Origine." 

 pubhshed at Oxford in 1703, and incorporated as an Appendix in the great work of Li>ckivs, ' Dc Strllis 

 Marinis' (1733), and also in an edition of the ' Lithophylacium' published in 1700. 



