''^""•l F0UNDEE8 OF PALEOBOTANY. 405 



which has been quoted already {supra, p. 372), and will receive special 

 attention farther on. 



Fourimportant works appeared in 1822, viz., (1) a memoir by Adolphe 

 Bronguiart, contained in the "Description g^ologique des environs de 

 Paris," by Cuvier and Alex. Brongniart (also in Cuvier's "Eecherches 

 surles ossements fossiles," Tome V, pp. 640-674, 6d. 1835), describing the 

 fossil plants of the Paris basin ; (2) Mantell's Fossils of the South Downs, 

 or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, in which the plant remains, 

 though meager, are mostly dicotyledonous, or fruits of Conifers, etc. 

 (see Plates VIII and IX and pp. 157 and 262) ; (3) Martins, "De plantis 

 nonnuUis antediluvanis ope specierum inter tropicos viventium illus- 

 trandis;'"^* and (4) Schlotheim's "Nachtrag zur Petrefactenkunde," 

 which, though chiefly devoted to animal fossils, contains an interesting 

 chapter on fossil seaweeds. 



Brongniart took up the subject of fossil seaweeds, or facoids, the fol- 

 lowing year,"^ but with the exception of two or three unimportant 

 papers nothing else appeared in 1823, though research was none the 

 less active. 



Much the same could be said for the year 1824, although the contri- 

 butions of Buckland,"'' Sir Henry Thomas de la Beche,'" and Dr. Man- 

 tell"' in England, Defrance"'' in France, and Mlssou"" in Sweden 

 added to the stock of knowledge in this department. Sternberg pub- 

 lished an important memoir in Flora,"^ and Martins began his great 

 work on the palms,™ which has at least proved an aid to paleobotany, 

 and to which Unger eventually supplied the fossil department. 



The year 1825 was characterized in England by an important illus- 

 trated work by Edmund Tyrell Artis, entitled "Antediluvian Phytol- 

 ogy," which, notwithstanding Brongniart's criticism,"^ and the fact that 

 most of his species have been obliged to give way, must ever remain 

 one of the classics of paleobotany, though rather as a work of art than 

 of science. The author discusses in a very rational manner the progress 

 of ideas relative to geology, but shows the proximity of his time to the 

 age of pure discussion by admitting that he had undertaken to prepare 

 himself to write the work because "convinced of the importance of this 



'^'Denkschriflen der koniglich-baierisclien bataniechen Gesellsoliaf t in Eegensberg, 

 Band II, 1822, p. 121, PI. II-X. 



i66M6m. de la Soc. d'Hist.Nat., Paris, Tome I, ))p. 301-321, PI. xix-xxi. 



le^Xrans. Geol. Soc. London, ser. ii. Vol. I, Part I, p. 210. 



^^■'Loc. Git., Pt. II, pp. 45, 162, PI. VII, Pigs. 2, 3. 



lesioc. dt, Part II, p. 421. 



169 Jacques Louis Marin Defrance. Tableau des corps organises fossiles, pr6c6d^ des 

 remarques sur les petrifications. Paris, 1824. (See pp. 123, 124, 126.) 



""Kongl. Vetenskaps-Aoademiens Handlingar, 1824, pp. 143-148, PI. II. Stock- 

 holm, 1824. 



1" Bd. VII, p. 689. 



'"C. F. Martins. Genera et species palmarum quas in itinere per Brasiliam annis 

 1817-1820. . . coUegit. Monaohii, 1824-1849. 



'"Hist, des v^g. foss., Tome I, p. 6. 



