496 



NA TURE 



{Sept. 18, 1879 



fossils discovered in Silesia ; in 1622, a detailed deicription of 

 the renowned Museum of Calceolarius, of Verona, appeared ; 

 and in 1642, a catalogue of Besler's collection ; Warmius's cata- 

 logue was published in 1652 ; Spener's in 1663 ; and Septala's 

 in 1666. A description of the Museum of the King of Denmark 

 was issued in 1669 ; Cottorp's catalogue in 1674, and that of the 

 renowned Kirscher in 1678. Dr. Grew gave an account in 1687 

 of the specimens in the Museum of Gresham's CoUesje in 

 England ; and in 1695, Petiver of London published a catalogue 

 of his very extensive collection. A catalogue by P'red. Lauch- 

 mund, on the fossils of Hildesheim, appeared in 1669, and the 

 fossils of Switzerland were described by John Jacob Wagner in 

 1689. Among similar works were the dissertations of Gyer at 

 Frankfort, and Albertus at Leipsic. 



Steno, a Dane, who had been professor of Anatomy at Padua, 

 published, in 1659, one of the most important works of this 

 period.^ He entered earnestly into the controversy as to the 

 origin of fossil remains, and by dissecting a shark from the 

 Mediterranean, proved that its teeth were identical with some 

 found fossil in Tuscany. He also compared the fossil shells 

 found in Italy with existing species, and pointed out their resem- 

 blance. In the same work, Steno expressed some very important 

 views in regard to the different kinds of strata, and their origin, 

 and first placed on record the important fact that the oldest rocks 

 contain no fossils. 



Scilla, the Sicilian painter, published in 1670 a work on the 

 fossils of Calabria, well illustrated. He is very severe against 

 those who doubted the organic origin of fossils, but is inclined 

 to consider them relics of the Mosaic deluge. 



Another instance of the power of the lusus natura theory, 

 even at the close of the seventeenth century, deserves mention. 

 In the year 1696, the skeleton of a fossil elephant was dug up 

 at .Tonna, near Gotha, in Germany, and was described by 

 William Ernest Tentzel, a teacher in the Gotha Gymnasium. 

 He declared the bones to be the remains of an animal that had 

 lived long before. The Medical Faculty in Gotha, however, 

 considered the subject, and decided officially that this specimen 

 was only a freak of nature. 



Beside the authors I have mentioned, there were many others 

 who wrote about fossil remains before the close of the seven- 

 teenth century, and took part in the general discussion as to their 

 nature and origin. During the progress of this controversy the 

 most fantastic theories were broached, and stoutly defended, and 

 although refuted from time to time by a few clear-headed men, 

 continually sprang up anew, in the same or modified forms. 

 The influence of Aristotle's views of equivocal generation, and 

 especially thi scholastic tendency to disputation, so prevalent 

 during the middle ages, had contributed largely to the retardation 

 of progress, and yet a real advance in knowledge had been made. 

 The long contest in regard to the nature of fossil remains was 

 essentially over, for the more intelligent opinion at the time now 

 acknowledged that theseobjects were not mere " sports of nature," 

 but had once been endowed with life. At this point, therefore, 

 the first period in the history of palaaontology, as I have indi- 

 cated it, may appropriately end. 



It is true that later still, the old exploded errors about the 

 plastic force and fermentation were from time to time revived, 

 as they have been almost to the present day ; but learned men, 

 with few exceptions, no longer seriously questioned that fossils 

 were real organisms, as the ancients had once believed. The 

 many collections of fossils that had been brought together, and 

 the illustrated works that had been published about them, were 

 a foundation for greater progress, and, with the eighteenth 

 century, the second period in the history of pala:ontology 

 began. 



The main characteristic of this period was the general belief 

 that fossil remains were deposited by the Mosaic deluge. We 

 have seen that this view had already been advanced, but it was 

 not till the beginning of the eighteenth century that it became 

 the prevailing view. This doctrine was strongly opposed by 

 some coiu'ageous men, and the discussion on the subject soon 

 became even more bitter than the previous one, as to the nature 

 of fossils. 



In this diluvial discussion theologians and laymen alike to ok 

 part. For nearly a century the former had it all their own way, 

 for the general jrablic, then as "now, believed what they were 

 taught. Noah's flood was thought to have been universal, and 

 was the only general catastrophe of which the people of that 

 day had any knowledge or conception. 



* *' De Solido intra Solidum naturaliter Contento." 



Tlie ; cholars among theai wero oi course -faaiiliar with the 

 accounts of Deucalion and his ark, in a previous deluge, as we 

 are to-day with similar traditions held by various races of men. 

 The firm belief that the earth and all it contains was created 

 in six days ; that all life on the globe wa~, destroyed by the 

 deluge excepting alone what Noah saved ; and that the earth 

 and its inhabitants were to be destroyed by fire, was the foun- 

 dation on which all knowledge of the earth was based. With 

 such fixed opinions, the fo-^sil I'emains of animals and plants 

 were naturally regarded as relics left by the flood described in 

 Holy Writ. The dominant nature of this belief is seen in 

 nearly all the literature in regard to fossils published at this 

 time, and some of the works which then appeared have become 

 famoits on this account. 



In 1710, David Biittner published a volume entitled " Rudera 

 Diluvii Testes." He strongly opposed Lhwyd's explanation 

 of the origin of fossils, and referred these objects directly to 

 the flood. The most renowned work, however, of this time, 

 was published at Zurich, in 1726, by Scheuchzer, a physician 

 and naturalist, and professor in the University of Altorf. It 

 bore the title "Homo Diluvii Testis." The specimen upon 

 which this work was based was found at Oeningen, and was 

 regarded as the skeleton of a child destroyed'by the deluge. The 

 author recognised in this remarkable fossil, not merely the 

 skeleton, but also portions of the muscles, the liver, and the 

 brain. The same author v,as fortunate enough to discover, 

 subsequently, near Altorf, two fossil vertebrx, which he at once 

 referred to that " accursed race destroyed by the flood ! " These, 

 also, he carefully described and figured in his " Physica Sacra," 

 published at Ulm in 1731. Engravings of both were subsequently 

 given in the " Copper- Bible." Cuvier afterwards examined 

 these interesting relics and pronounced the skeleton of the sup- 

 posed child to be the remains of a gigantic salamander, and 

 the two vertebrae to be those of an ichthyosaui-us ! 



Another famous book appeared in Germany in the same year 

 in which Scheuchzer's first volume was published. The author 

 was John BartholomewAdam Beringer, professor at the University 

 of Wiirtzburg, and his great work ' indirectly had an important 

 influence upon the investigation of fossil remains. The history 

 of the work is instructive, if only as an indication of the state of 

 knowledge at that date. Prof. Beringer, in accordance with 

 views of his time, had taught his pupils that fossil remains, or 

 "figured stones," as they were called, were mere "sports of 

 nature. ' ' Some of his fun -loving students reasoned among them- 

 selves, " if nature can make figured stones in sport, why can not 

 M'C ? " Accordingly, from the soft limestone in the neighbouring 

 hills, they carved out figures of marvellous and fantastic forms, 

 and buried them at the localities where the learned professor was 

 accustomed to dig for his fossil treasures. His delight at the 

 discovery of tliese strange forms encouraged further production, 

 and taxed the ingenuity of these youthful imitators of Nature's 

 secret processes. At last Beringer had a large and unique 

 collection of forms, new to him, and to science, which 

 he determined to publish to the world. After long and 

 patient study, his work appeared, in Latin, dedicated to the 

 reigning prince of the country, and illustrated with twenty-one 

 folio plates. Soon after the book was published, the deception 

 practised upon the credulous professor became known ; and in 

 place of the glory he expected from his gi'eat undertaking, he 

 received only ridicule and disgrace. He at once endeavoured to 

 repurchase and destroy the volumes already issued, and succeeded 

 so far that few copies of the first edition remain. His small 

 fortune, which had been seriously impaired in bringing out his 

 grand work, was exhausted in the effort to regain what was already 

 issued, .as the price rapidly advanced in proportion as fewer 

 copies remained ; and, mortified at the failure of his life's work, 

 he died in poverty. It is said that some of his family, dissatisfied 

 with the misfortune brought upon them by this disgrace and the 

 loss oftheir patrimony, used a remaining copy for the production of 

 a second edition, which met with a large sale, sufficient to repair the 

 previous loss, and restore the family fortune. This work of 

 Beringer's, in the end, exerted an excellent influence upon the 

 dawning science of fossil remains. Observers became more 

 cautious in announcing supposed discoveries, and careful study 

 of natural objects gradually replaced vague hypotheses. 



The above works, however, are hardly fair examples of the 

 literature on fossils during this part of the eighteenth century. 

 Scheuchzer had previously published his well-known " Com- 



' " Lithographia Wirceburgensis, ducentis lapidum _figuratonira, a 

 potiori, insectiformium, prodigiosis imaginibus exomata.'* Wirceburgi, 

 1726. Edit. II. Francofurti et Lipsiae. 1767. 



I 



