20i 



On FGrmatiorn. 



[Ma R.cHj 



for lie speaks of transition rocks^ greenstone, &c. ; terms 

 trhich he former!}' considered as barbarous in the extreme, and 

 worthy the school where they originated. But not only is the 

 nomenclature for rocks and simple minerals used in this essay the 

 same as that employed by Weri^er, but the authors also inva- 

 riably employ his geognostic phraseology; thus the word foroT^- 

 tion is used throughout in the Wernerian- signification, and the 

 fundamental rock or bason of the district is described according 

 to the meihod of the geognosy. Even the order followed in the 

 description of the formations is that of the Wernerian school, 

 beginning with the oldest, and finishing v;ith the newest ; and 

 tlie difficulties that occur in the investigation are resolved by an 

 appeal to the rules and method of the geognosy. The very map 

 which is attached to the essay is executed according to the plan 

 of Werner ; and its title shows that Cuvier and Brongniart do 

 not consider the nom.enclature as barbarous, for it is entitled a 

 geognostic, not a geological map. 



If then this essay be so pure in its nomenclature, and perfect 

 in its descriptions ; and if it owes this to the language u?ed, and 

 the method of investigation pursued, it follows that the Wer- 

 nerian nomenclature, and mode of investigation, although con- 

 trary to the intention of the author of the remarks, is proved to 

 be the best, and that which must be employed if our mineralo- 

 gical investigations shall attract any notice from philosophers, or 

 regard from those interested in the mineralogical surveys of 

 countries. 



Lastly, the author of these remarks touches on a subject of 

 high importance in geognostical inquiries; it is the study of the 

 natural history of shells, as an accessory branch of geognosy. I 

 cordially agree with hira in opinion that conchology is a branch 

 of natural history which cannot be sufnciently recommended to 

 the attention of all geognosts, as furnishing important means of 

 ascertaining with accuracy many of the leading facts in the history 

 of the globe. It is a branch of natural history which has been 

 long studied in Germany and France, and has of late years, par- 

 ticularly since its importance in geognosy has been ascertained 

 and pointed out, made great advances. But we naturally inquire 

 to whom are we indebted for our present highly interesting views 

 of the natural history of fossil organic remains in general ? It is 

 to Werner. More than 30 years ago he first embodied all that 

 was known of petrifactions into a regular system. He insisted 

 on the necessity of every geognostical cabinet containing also an 

 extensive collection not only of shells, but also of the various 

 productions of the class zoophyta, of plants, particularly of sea 

 and mari^h plant?, and ferns; and an examination of the remains 

 of quadrupeds in the great limestone caves in Germany, soon 

 pointed out tQ him the necessity of attaching to the geognostical 



