FOSSIL BIRDS. 



Naturalists are agreed that, of all animals, the birds are those 

 whose bones or other debris are most rarely to be met with in 

 the fossil state. Some have even gone so far as absolutely to 

 deny their existence. It is, indeed, a remarkable fact, and one 

 of the many, singularities attached to the gypsum strata of 

 Paris, that there are scarcely any other fossil bones of birds, well 

 authenticated, except those which they contain ; and it is even 

 but a short period since the true nature of these fossils has 

 been clearly ascertained. 



We shall give a rapid sketch of the various testimonies which 

 have been given by writers, from time to time, concerning true 

 or pretended ornitholites. 



Walch had pretty early made a considerable collection of 

 these, to which Hermann added many others. But the first 

 of these writers was frequently deceived from the want of due 

 precaution. Even Gesnerhas declared that stones named after 

 certain birds, supposed to be petrified therein, such as hiera- 

 cites, and perdicites^ have no other relation with them, than 

 some resemblance of colour. 



Neither do the rude figures of birds, traced accidentally on 

 some coloured stones, appertain to the ornitholites, nor yet the 

 stones or flints figured by chance into a likeness to certain parts 

 of birds. The cock of Agricola, and the hen of Mylius, im- 

 printed on a slate from Ilmenan, are of this description. 



Many authors have very gratuitously considered certain 

 fossil bones as belonging to birds, merely because they were 

 light and slender ; but a little attentive examination soon 

 proved them to be parts of fishes, of small quadrupeds, and 

 sometimes even nothing but shells or Crustacea. Thus, the 

 sulcidata littoralis rostrata of Luid seems to be nothing but 



