64 Analysis of the Protogea of Leibniz. 
36—7. Description of the caves of Scharzfield and Blackenburg 
in the Hartz with their bones and teeth—* aliqui tantae magnitudinis 
ut ad nota nobis animalia referri non possunt.” ‘The same caves 
are described by Buckland in his Reliquie Diluviane. 
38. Of amber. The figures of leaves, mosses, and insects pre- 
served in it (the substances themselves are wanting,) favor the idea 
of its vegetable origin. 
39—41. Of the alluvium of rivers, etc.—the mouths of the Rhine, 
the Rhone, the Po, the Nile, with some others, are cited as examples. 
42—3. Account of the succession of strata under the town of 
Mutina in Italy and its wells. After descending nearly seventy feet, 
a pointed instrument is driven downward, on withdrawing which, the 
_water rises quite to the top and flows over upon the surface of the 
earth. The ascent is so rapid that the workman is in danger of be- 
ing drowned ; an explanation is given to which it is not necessary for 
us to attend. As an example of the accumulation of earth in some 
situations, the well known fact is stated, that we now descend to get 
into the Pantheon of Agrippa instead of ascending as the Romans 
did by a number of steps when it was first built. 
44—5. Of fossil wood whether petrified or retaining its vegetable 
character—dug up in Germany and other parts of the world—a sim- 
ple statement of facts. 
4 turf—its origin and the manner of preparing and using it 
—it is reproduced very slowly if it all. 
47—8. Of a subterranean forest and the succession of strata ob- 
served in digging a well two hundred and thirty two feet in depth, 
under the town of Amsterdam. 
It will be apparent from the above abstract, that Leibnitz does by 
no means merit the reproaches that have some times been heaped 
upon him as (at least in this department of knowledge,) a mere vis- 
ionary system builder. The science of mineralogy was yet to be 
created when he wrote, and his treatise therefore, contains but litle 
that can be valuable to a geologist of the present day. But its de- 
fects are chargeable upon the age in which it was written rather than 
upon Leibnitz. Good sense, and the indications of patient and ac- 
curate observation, pervade every part of it, and we may venture to 
ussert, that if examined instead of being condemned at hap hazard 
from its title, it will be found not unworthy of the genius and fame © 
its illustrious author. 
University of North Carolina, Jan. 31st, 1831. 
