356 



THE GEOLOGIST 



Belemnites, Glossopetra (sharks' teeth), and the thnncTer- stones as 

 derived from the Pinna or some other marine shell. Passing by 

 Michel Mercati, Bonlin, Imperato (who regarded them as stalactites), 

 Schwenkfeldt, Libavius, Boetins de Boot, Ceruto, Chiocco, Aldro- 

 vandi, Merret, Charleton, and others, who speculated to little 

 pm^pose, copied from each other, or blnndered, as Olans Worm 

 did, in mistaking them for flints from the chalk, we come to 

 Lachmund, vfho, in 1669, made a further step towards knovdedge 

 by a primitive distinction of species, giving a goodly number of 

 woodcuts, which, though rude in execution compared with our 

 modern skilfulness in that department of art, are sufficiently indica- 

 tive of the objects. 



Our countryman, Lister, though generally so advanced beyond his 

 contemporaries in natural history knowledge, did nothing for the 

 Belemnites. In 1678, we find him placing them immediately after 

 the Echini, or sea-urchins, in his division of Lapides turbinati non 

 spirati without remark. 



Grew, Jean Schroeder, Sibbald, Leibnitz, and Jacobgeus follow with 

 equally bald results up to the time of Lhwyd, who made a great 

 collection of minerals and fossils from different countries, particu- 

 larly from England, and in 1699 devoted a chapter to Belemnites, 

 figuring all the varieties in his possession. While regarding the 

 alveolus as the matter v/hich had filled the cavities, he searches little 

 after the origin of these fossils, and contents himself with consi- 

 dering them as concretions made in the tubes of worms. 



With the dawn of the eighteenth century a more intelligent 

 ray of knowledge began to beam, although absurd notions still con- 

 tinued to be propagated. Tournefort (1702) persisted in regarding 

 them as mere minerals (lyncurium) to favour his doctrine of the 

 growth of stones, and their reproduction from germs. Ghedini, 

 believing them to be crystals, thought they ought when perfect to 

 have two points instead of one. Helwing, following LliAvyd, looked 

 upon them as either marine plants, stony zooph}i:es, or marine tubes, 

 and imagined that they were pointed at both ends before they were 

 petrified and formed part of the rock. Yolkman (in 1720), speak- 

 ing of those of Silesia, supposes them to be spines of fish ; and even 

 Swedenborg, having only seen the alveoles, regarded them as the 



