676 DE. W. B. CAltPEKTEE ON THE STBUCTUEE, PlIYSIOLOOY, AND 



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

 riglit to cite the evidence of it in some detail. 



The ' Lithophylacii Britannici Ichnographia ' of Edward Llhuyd' (1G99) is a work 

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

 industry and sagacity of its author. To elucidate the nature of Fossils by the compa- 

 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 jmnctulata, includes all the 

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

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

 classem retulimus omncs lapides ejusmodi materia conflatos; sive ii ad Echinos spectcnt, 

 . . . sive ad Stellas marinas, ut Astrorrhiza, Astropodium, Astoria, Entrochus, Volvola, 

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

 fragments). Further, in the supplemental Ejiistolm contained in the same volume, wc 

 find an express discussion on the relations of the Encrimis of Lachmund, the Entrochus 

 of Ageicola, and the Asteria of Plot, to existing 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 ^72 ^<?f7o?j as the particular Sea-star to which the Crinoidea are most nearly 

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



1 The dedication of this work to Maetin Lisieb is in the following terms, alike honourable to hoth parties : 



. « Erudito imprimis viro D. Martino Lister, Doctori Modico scriptis et praxi claro, f^ocietatis Eegiae Socio 



illustrissimo ; Musci Oxoniensis, post ipsum cujus nomen pra)fcrt nobilissimum Ashmolum, fautori primario ; 

 Bibliothecaj ibidem pliysicEC ct antiquaria; fundatori munifico ; fossilium Britannia) insula; indagatori prime ft 

 foelici ; prajcoptori suo indulgentissimo ct Mecanati ajtci-mim colendo ; banc qualemcunqnc Lithophylacii Bri- 

 tannici lelinograpliiam, officii ct gratitudinis ergo, humillimc offert ac dedicat Edtaedcs LriDirs." — Of the 

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

 in the foUo^ving notification : — 



Eujiis Libri centum et viginti tantinn Exemplarla hnprcssa sunt, iminnais infraserijitortm 



iLLirSIRISS. VmOEIJM, 



D. Baronis Sommers, summi Anglian Cancellarii. 



D. Comitis de Dorset, &c. 



D. C. Montague, Cancellarii Scaocarii. 



D. Isaaci Newton. 



B. M. Lister. 



' ' Prselectio de Stellis Marinis Occaui Britannici, ncc non de Astcrianim, Entrochonim, et Encrinorum Origiuc' 

 published at Oxford in 1703, and incorporated as an Appendix in the great work of Lixcxirs, 'De Stcliis 

 Marinis ' (1733), and also in an edition of the ' Lithophylacium ' published in 17C0. 



D. T. Eobinson. 



D. II. Sloan. 



D. Fr. Aston. 



D. Oeoffray, Parisiensis. 



