TITE GEOLOGIST. 



remains, as follows: — "No definition can be given that will suit every 

 fossil, except simply that which strikes the eye, which in "a general way 

 is pretty correct. For as extraneous fossils have been and can be matched 

 by such substances in a recent state, and probably the animals most [fre- 

 quently], they may in a general way be distinguished ; and this arises 

 from the part in a fossil state having been more or less deprived of the 

 parts belonging to the .recent, which is the animal part ; and which is what 

 principally gives colour to them: thus fossil shells have none, of those 

 bright colours found in the recent ; yet some shells retain something of 

 their original colour, though the animal part is dissolved into a kind of 

 mucus, which would make us conceive that both the animal and earthy 

 parts were so disposed as to reflect nearly the same colours, but the ani- 

 mal part is by much the brightest : for it is not simply the state in which 

 the substance is that constitutes a fossil; but it is the state, with the 

 mode in which it was brought to that state, that commonly constitutes a 

 fossil ; for many things might be called an ' extraneous fossil ' if considered 

 abstractedly from the manner of their being brought to that state ; [and 

 so considered] every churchyard would produce fossils." — P. xxiv. 



" To establish the principles of fossils, I shall set it down first as a prin- 

 ciple, that no animal substance can of itself constitute, or be turned into, 

 a fossil ; it can only be changed for a fossil." The acute distinction 

 drawn between ' turned into ' and ' changed for,' — a distinction which theo- 

 logians and metaphysicians have long rightly drawn, but which many of 

 our learners in palaeontology find it hard to perceive, — was clearly present 

 to the mind of John Hunter. 



With respect to the other portions of the work before us, not imme- 

 diately of a geological nature, extending over two thick octavo volumes, 

 we must be silent. We must coincide with Professor Owen that the text 

 " is here and there obscure enough to test the acumen of a skilled logician 

 to decipher the sense. But it is always a matter of interest to endeavour 

 to make out the meaning of a deep and original thinker; and different 

 minds, unbiassed by any suggestion of the editor, may be induced to give 

 their views of Hunter's meaning, and their opinions of his conclusions. It 

 may be interesting also to some, standing on the vantage ground of seventy 

 years' progress, to know what such a self-taught philosopher did not know 

 on the subjects he grappled with: and a small proportion of the present 

 writings of Hunter may chiefly serve to illustrate his mental peculiarities 

 and shortcomings. 



" To those who are conversant with Hunter's style, other testimony of 

 the authenticity of the present writings will be superfluous : and it has 

 seemed to the editor that the requirements of science would be best met 

 by presenting these writings 'pure and simple,' as Hunter left them." 



We have only to say that the sole qualified person in England to de- 

 velope the thoughts of the great past English anatomist and palaeontologist 

 was the Biologist who had so long occupied the Hunterian chair at the 

 Koj^al College of Surgeons, and who has so conscientiously and ably per- 

 formed a difficult and laborious task in publishing the lost Hunterian 

 manuscripts. 



