426 SKETCH OF PALEOBOTANY. 



Yolkmann (1720) adopts this term, and also LitJiophyllon, while to all 

 impressions of leaves and fronds he gives the general name of Litho- 

 pliytes, but he goes a long way in the direction of Scheuchzer in accept- 

 ing the indigenous theory (supra, p. 395). Schultze (1755) treats the whole 

 subject of plant impressions from a strictly mineralogical point of view, 

 designating his figures by the old indigenous names of Scheuchzer and 

 Yolkmann ; but the three general classes of petrifactions which he de- 

 scribes without naming are of interest, as showing that he possessed a 

 firm and rational grasp of the phenomena. They are : (1) Whole trees, 

 large trunks, thick roots, and other similar woody matters transformed 

 into stone ; (2) impressions of twigs, leaves, flowers, etc., which consist 

 either in whole or in part of the remains of the originals in a petrified 

 state; (3) impressions of stems, plants, and shrubs in which no trace 

 of their former parts is perceptible. 



Walch (1769) was the first to offer anything like a nomenclature of 

 fossil plants, and although most of his names have now disappeared 

 from the textbooks, they still served a useful purpose during a long 

 embryonic period in the history of the science. He called petrified 

 trunks by the terms Idthodendron and Dendrolithus ; pieces of petrified 

 wood Lithoxylon, and also Stelechites ; petrified roots, BMzolithus. If 

 the fossil remains bore a sufi&cient resemblance to any living tree or 

 plant, it was called by the name of that plant, with its terminal sylla- 

 ble changed into ites, as Baphnites, Sandalites, etc., a method which is 

 still extensively employed in the creation of fossil genera of plants. 

 Herbaceous plants were called Phytolithi, but he distinguished mere 

 impressions of these as PhytotypoUtM. Fossil leaves were Lithobiblia, 

 Bibliolithi, or Lithophylla. Phytobiblia referred to the leaves of herbs 

 as opposed to those of trees. He mistook the Galamitw for great reeds, 

 and applied to them this name, as also that of Lithocalmi, the first of 

 which has come down to us notwithstanding the misnomer. Fossil 

 fruits he denominated GarpoUthi, which is another term that has sur- 

 vived in the long struggle for existence. 



Parkinson (1804) contented himself by giying a simple classification 

 in English, although he refers to the Latin names which had been 

 given to his groups by previous authors. His terminology was, (1) 

 fossil trees ; (2) fossil plants ; (3) fossil roots ; (4) fossil stalks ; (5) fossil 

 leaves ; (6) fossil fruits and seed-vessels. 



Steinhauer (1818) made four classes : Fossil wood (Lithoocylon), fossil 

 fruits (Lithocarpi), fossil leaves {Lithophylli [sic]), and fossil flowers, of 

 whose existence he seemed doubtful. He describes ten species, all of 

 which he classes under the one genus, PhytoUthus. Considering the mea- 

 gerness of this presentation it is somewhat surprising that Steinhauer 

 should have actually been the first to apply specific names to fossil 

 plants, and thus to bring them fairly within the circle of natural his- 

 tory sciences. It had thus taken more than a century to complete the 

 cycle from the attempt of Scheuchzer to apply Tournefort's classifica- 



