Sept. 1 8, 1879] 



NATURE 



495 



eclipsed;" " the J/orii 0/ Ani/non, possessing, with a golden 

 colour, the figure of a ram's horn ; " Ceraunia and Ombria, 

 supposed to be thunderbolts ; Ostracites, resembling the oyster 

 shell ; Spongites, having the form of sponge ; Phycites, resembling 

 sea-weed or rushes. He also mentions stones resembling the 

 teeth of hippopotamus ; and says that Theophrastus speaks of 

 fossil ivory, both black and white, of bones born in the earth, 

 and of stones bearing the figure of bones. 



TertuUian (i6oA.D.) mentions instances of the remains of 

 sea animals on the mountains, far from the sea, but uses them as 

 a proof of the general deluge recorded in Scripture. 



During the next thirteen or fourteen centuries, fossil remains 

 of animals and plants seem to have attracted so little attention, 

 that few references are made to them by the writers of this 

 period. During these ages of darkness, all departments of 

 knowledge suffered alike, and feeble repetitions of ideas derived 

 from the ancients seem to have been about the only contribu- 

 tions of that period to Natural Science. 



Albert the Great (1205-1280 A.D.), the most learned man 

 of his time, mentions that a branch of a tree was found, on 

 which was a bird's nest containing birds, the whole being solid 

 stone. He accounted for this strange phenomenon by the vis 

 formativa of Aristotle, an occult force, which, according to the 

 prevalent notions of the time, was capable of forming most of 

 the extraordinary objects discovered in the earth. 



Alexander ab Alexandra, of Naples, states that he saw, in the 

 mountains of Calabria, a considerable distance from the sea, a 

 variegated hard marble, in which many sea shells but little 

 changed were heaped, forming one mass with the marble. 



With the beginning of the sixteenth century, a great Impetus 

 was given to the investigation of organic fossils, especially iii 

 Italy, where this study really began. The discovery of fossil 

 shells, which abound in this region, now attracted great atten- 

 tion, and a fierce discussion soon arose as to the true nature of 

 these and other remains. The ideas of Aristotle in regard to 

 spontaneous generation, and especially his view of the hidden 

 forces of the earth, which he claimed had power to produce 

 such remains, now for the first time were seriously questioned, 

 although it was not till nearly two centuries later that these 

 doctrines lost their dominant influence. 



Leonardo da Vinci, the renowned painter and philosopher, 

 who was born in 1452, strongly opposed the commonly accepted 

 opinions as to the origin of organised fossils. He claimed that 

 the fossil shells under discussion were what they seemed, and 

 had once lived at the bottom of the sea. "You tell me," he 

 says, " that Nature and the influence of the stars have formed 

 these shells in the mountains ; then show me a place in the 

 mountains where the stars at the present day make shelly forms 

 of different ages, and of difierent species in the same place." 

 Again, he says, " In what manner can such a cause account for 

 the petrifactions in the same place of various leaves, sea-weeds, 

 and marhie crabs ? " 



In 1517, excavations in the vicinity of Verona brought to 

 light many curious petrifactions, which led to much speculation 

 as to their nature and origin. Among the various authors who 

 wrote on this subject was Fracastoro, who declared that the 

 fossils once belonged to living animals, which had lived and 

 multiplied where found. He ridiculed the prevailing ideas 

 that the plastic force of the ancients could fashion stones into 

 organic forms. Some writers claimed that these shells had been 

 left by Noah's flood, but to this idea Fracastoro offered a mass 

 of evidence which would now seem conclusive, but which then 

 only aroused bitter hostility. That inundation, he said, was too 

 transient ; it consisted mainly of fresh water ; and if it had 

 transported shells to great distances, must have scattered them 

 over the surface, not buried them in the interior of mountains. 



Conrad Gesner (1516— 1565), whose history of animals has 

 been considered the basis of modem zoology, published at 

 Zurich in is&S a small but important work entitled "De rerum 

 Fossilium, I.apidum, et Gemmarum figuris." It contained a 

 catalogue of the collection of fossils made by John Kentmann. 

 This is the oldest catalogue of fossils with which I am 

 acquainted. 



George A:J;ricola (1494 — 1555) was, according to Cuvier, the 

 first mineralogist who appeared after the revival of learning in 

 Europe. In his great work, " De Re Metalica," published in 

 1546, he mentions various fossil remains, and says they were 

 produced by a certain materia pingiiis, or fatty matter, set in 



fermentation by heat. Some years later Bauhin published a 

 descriptive catalogue of the fossils he had collected in the 

 neighbourhood of Boll, in WUrtemberg.' 



Andrew Mattioli, a distinguished botanist, adopted Agricola's 

 notion as to the origin of organized fossils, but admitted that 

 shells and bones might be turned into stone by being permeated 

 by a "lapidifying juice." Falloppio, the eminent professor 

 of anatomy at Padua, believed that fossil shells were generated 

 by fermentation where they were found ; and that the tusks of 

 elephants, dug up near Apulia, were merely earthy concretions. 

 Mercati, in IS74. published figures of the fossil shells preserved 

 in the Museum of the Vatican, but expressed the opinion that 

 they were only stones, that owed their peculiar shapes to the 

 heavenly bodies. Olivi, of Cremona, described the fossils in 

 the Museum at Verona, and considered them all "sports of 

 nature." 



Talissy, a French author, in 1 580, opposed these views, and 

 is said to have been the first to assert in Paris that fossil shells 

 and fishes had once belonged to marine animals. Fabio Colonna 

 appears to have first pointed out that some of the fossil shells 

 found in Italy were marine, and some terrestrial. 



Another peculiar theory discussed in the sixteenth century 

 deserves mention. This was the vegetation theory, especially 

 advocated by Tournefort and Camerarius, both eminent as 

 botanists. These writers believed that the seeds of minerals 

 and fossils were diffused throughout the sea and the earth, and 

 were developed into their peculiar forms by the regular incre- 

 ment of their particles, similar to the formation of crystals. 

 " How could the Cornu Amiiionis," Tournefort asked, " which 

 is "constantly in the figure of a volute, be formed without a 

 seed containing the same structure in the small, as in the 

 larger forms ? Who moulded it so artfully, and where are the 

 moulds ? " The stalactites which formed in caverns in various 

 parts of the world were also supposed to be proofs of this 

 vegetative growth. 



Still another theory has been held at various times, and is 

 not yet entirely forgotten, namely : that the Creator made 

 fossil animals and plants just as they are found in the rocks, 

 in pursuance of a plan beyond our comprehension. This theory 

 has never prevailed among those familiar with scientific facts, 

 and hence needs here no further consideration. 



An interest in fossil remains arose in England later than on 

 the Continent ; but when attention was directed to them, the 

 first opinions as to their origin were not less fanciful and erroneous 

 than those to which we have already referred. Dr. Plot, in his 

 " Natural History of Oxfordshire," published in 1677, considered 

 the origin of fossil shells and fishes to be due to a " plastic virtue, 

 latent in the earth," as Theophrastus had suggested long before. 

 Lhwyd, in his "Lithophylacii Britannici Ichnographia, " published 

 at Oxford in 1699, gives a catalogue of English fossils contained 

 in the Ashmolean Museum. He opposed the vis plastica theory, 

 and expressed the opinion that the spawn of fishes and other 

 marine animals had been raised with the vapours from the sea, 

 conveyed inland by clouds, and deposited by rain, h.ad per- 

 meated into the interior of the earth, and thus produced the fossil 

 remains we find in the rocks. About this time several important 

 works were published in England by Dr. Martin Lister, which 

 did much to infuse a true knowledge of fossil remains. He 

 gave figures of recent shells side by side with some of the fossil 

 forms, so that the resemblance became at once appctrent. The 

 fossil species of shells he called " turbinated and bivalve stones," 

 and adds, "either these were terriginous, or if otherwise, 

 the animals which they so exactly represent have become 

 extinct." 



During the seventeenth century there w.as a considerable 

 advance in the study of fossil remains. The discussions in 

 regard to the nature and origin of these objects had called atten- 

 tion to them, and many collections were now made, especially 

 in Italy, and also in Germany, where a strong interest in this 

 subject had been aroused. Catalogues of these collections were 

 not unfrequently published, and some of them were illustrated 

 with such accurate figures, that many of the species can now be 

 readily recognized. In this century, too, an important step in 

 advance was made by the collection and description of fossils 

 from particular localities and regions, in distinction from general 

 collections of curiosities. 



Casper Schwcnkfeld, in 1600, published a catalogue of the 



■ " Historia novi ct adinirabilis Fontis Balncique BoUensis, in Ducata 

 Wirtcmbcrgico. " Moulbcillard, 1598. ... __-. 



