Observations Concerning Fossil Organic Remains. 93 



lion, structure, position, and mutual relations — information 

 purely geological; that our knowledge was confined to what 

 lias been observed concerning the summits of mountains ; 

 their planes and bases ; concerning lakes and valleys ; and to 

 the removal of immense masses of rock, to great distances ; is 

 it probable that there could be a philosopher found, who would 

 maintain that this amount of knowledge does not, or could 

 not contribute to furnish the materials for a theory of the 

 earth ? I cannot beheve it, or ever persuade myself that M. 

 Cuvier seriously meant to maintain such a proposition. His 

 vast erudition in every thing which relates to physical sci- 

 ence, forbids my believing it ; and I choose to think that the 

 passages which have been cited are, so to speak, slips of the 

 lively pen, of this justly celebrated author. 



A little farther on we read, " It is only by analogy that 

 we have extended to primitive formations the conclusion, 

 which organic remains furnish, directly for the secondary 

 formations ; and if there had only existed formations with- 

 out fossil remains, no one could have maintained that these 

 formations had not been simultaneous.'''' 



Here I must commence with the same remark that I have 

 just made upon the first position, which is, that M. Cuvier, as- 

 sumes infinitely more than sound logic will sustain him in 

 doing. I allude more particularly to the latter part of the 

 above quotation, where he says " and if there had only exis- 

 ted formations without fossil remains, &c." 



Truly, when this point shall be yielded to M. Cuvier, ge- 

 ology will lose very much of its dignity ; for the science 

 must then acknowledge that it owes every thing to our 

 knowledge of organic remains. But how shall we make a 

 position of this sort agree with what we know concerning 

 the constituent parts of rocks of different composition — 

 information derived entirely from chemical analysis ? How 

 shall we then dispose of our discoveries relating to the dif- 

 ferent structure of formations, which are so geologically dis- 

 tinct, that they have based upon this circumstance the char- 

 acters for distinguishing the formations \ — Is not all we know 

 concerning succession in the primitive formations, directly 

 the result of observations purely geological ? Are we not 

 able to distinguish successive formations in strata, which do 

 not belong to the primitive ? Should we confound the for- 

 mation of chalk with that of the calcaire grossier, if depriv- 

 ed of the aid of their imbedded fossils, when there exists 



