212 NICOLAUS STENO 



once the teeth of sharks; this, it was at once apparent, is 

 identical with the general question whether bodies which are 

 similar to marine bodies, and which are found far from the sea, 

 were once produced in the sea. But since there are found also 

 on land other bodies resembling those which grow in fresh 

 waters, in the air, and in other fluids, if we grant to the earth 

 the power of producing these bodies, we cannot deny to it the 

 possibility of bringing forth the rest. It was necessary, there- 

 fore, to extend the investigation to all those bodies which, dug 

 from the earth, are observed to be like those bodies which we 

 elsewhere see growing in a fluid. But many other bodies, also, 

 are found among the rocks, possessed of a certain form ; and if 

 one should say that they were produced by the force of the 



the earth, resembling parts of animals, are the remains of animals which once lived on the 

 spot ; while others believe that such substances were formed in the earth without reference to 

 animals. I have not sufficient knowledge in these matters to venture an opinion at this time. 

 Although my travels [Steno accompanied Ferdinand II in his travels through Tuscany; cf. 

 Plenkers, Niels Stensen, pp. 31, 58] have led me through various regions of this sort, I would 

 not presume to assert that the places which I shall see in the rest of my journey will correspond 

 to those I have already examined ; especially since I have not yet seen the regions which my 

 distinguished teacher Bartholin has examined in his journey in Malta. Just as in court, 

 therefore, one man takes the r61e of defendant, another of plaintiff, while both submit to the 

 decision of the judge, so I shall present, as a result of my observations, the reasons for ascrib- 

 ing such substances to animals. At another time I may set forth the reasons for the opposite 

 belief, but I shall always await a true decision from those who are better informed.' For 

 Steno's illustrations oi glossopetrae see Maar, op. cit., Vol. II, Tab. III. 



Pliny (^Natural History, XXXVII. 164) states that the glossopetra, resembling the human 

 tongue, ' is not produced (nasci) in the earth, as tradition relates, but falls from heaven at 

 the time of the waning moon.' Compare, further, O. Abel, article Paliiontologie und Palao- 

 zoologie, in Die Kultur der Gegenwari, Dritter Teil, Vierte Abteilung, Vierte Band (Leipzig, 

 I9i4),pp. 313, 314: 



" Albertus Magnus hatte noch die Moglichkeit zugegeben, dass die Versteinerungen nicht 

 ausschliesslich Produkte der Virtus formativa seien, sondern dass auch die Leichenreste 

 fossiler Tiere und Pflanzen dort zu Stein werden konnten, wo eine steinmachende Kraft ihren 

 Einfluss ausijben konne. Ungefahr in denselben Bahnen bewegen sich die Vorstellungen von 

 Georg Bauer, genannt Agricola (1494-1555); Haifischzahne, die er nach dem Vorbilde des 

 alteren Plinius ' Glossopetren ' nennt (eine Bezeichnung, die noch G. W. Leibniz fur fossile 

 Pottwalzahne 1749 gebrauchte), sind nach Agricola ' verhartete Wassergemenge.'" 



Ibid., p. 344: "Die Glossopetren des Plinius sind fossile Haifischzahne, und da solche in 

 tertiaren Bildungen zu den haufigeren Wirbeltierresten gehoren, so erregten sie schon friih- 

 zeitig die Aufmerksamkeit. Es beriihrt eigentiimlich, noch heute einen einfachen Taglohner, 

 der gewiss nicht die mindeste Ahnung von der Literatur der Scholastenzeit besitzt, einen 

 fossilen Haifischzahn, den er in seinem Bruche fand, als ' Vogelzunge ' bezeichnen zu horen. 

 Bis zur Zeit Knorrs und Walchs gingen Haifischzahne vorwiegend unter der Bezeichnung 

 Zungensteine, Vogelzungen, Schwalbenzungen oder Schwalbensteine, Lamiodonten, Schlan- 

 genzungen usw. durch die Literatur, und noch Leibniz hielt an der Bezeichnung 'Glossopetra' 

 des alteren Plinius fest." 



