[ 33° ] 



But it will be urged, that we are to believe our own eyes, whers 

 the refemblance is fo ftrong ; to which I am ready to anfwer, 

 Yes ; if you will compare the foffil plant or animal with candour 

 and accuracy. 



For example, I will fuppofe the inftance of a foffil prawn to 

 be examined, which not one in ten thoufand will diftinguifh 

 from a large fhrimp ; yet if it is contended that this muft be a 

 fhrimp from the ftrong refemblance, the afiertion is not true. 



The fame holds with regard to the fpecimen of a large foffil 

 crawfiih, which differs fpecifically from a fmall lobfter, though 

 naturalifts only will difcern the proper criteria. 



Many learned writers, and amongft thefe fome diftinguiihed 

 foffilifts, have denied the inferences often drawn from thefe fub~ 

 terraneous fpecimens in fupport of an univerfal deluge. 



Dr. Grew (in his Catalogue of the Mufeum of the Royal So- 

 ciety) expreffes himfelf thus on this head. 



"Although nature cannot be faid to imitate art, yet it may 

 *a fall out, that the effects of both may have fome likenefs. Thofe 

 44 white concretions which the Italians (from the place where 

 " they are found), call, confetti di Tivo/i, are fometimes fo like. 

 « round confects, and the rough kind of fugared almonds, that 

 < 4 by the eye they cannot be diftinguiihed. To call thefe petrified 

 «< fugar plumbs were fenfelefs. Doth not Sal Ammoniac often 

 44 fhoot into millions of little ones ? If we find in other ftones 

 M the refemblance of plants, why not naturally there, as well as in 

 ** frofty weather upon glafs windows ;. or as falts fometimes 

 " figure themfelves into fome likenefs to the plants whereof they 

 44 are made ? Nay, why not to a face, or other animal form I 

 44 Since we fee that there are diverfe palm-nuts which have the.; 

 44 fame f ." 



f P. 254. 



Agam,, 



