243 
The probability that the stones, of which Pliny here speaks, were 
either trochites or asterise appears, however, to have been very slight 
indeed. In the first place, the marks which are displayed on the 
surfaces of these bodies do not appear to be such as would be likely to 
excite the idea of the leaves of a palm-tree : and, in the second place, 
it appears to be much more probable that such an idea might have 
been rather excited by stones marked with impressions of some real 
vegetable substance. 
Before the time of Lachmund, who first gave the name of encrinus 
to the stone lily, it was considered that as the separated entrochus 
presented the figure of a wheel on its surfaces, so the separated encrinus 
(columnar asteriae) gave the representation of lilies. By the term 
encrinus, therefore, the columnar asteriae were then designated. Thus 
Agricola, who speaks of these fossils, says, referring to the columnar 
asteriae, “ Quaelibet verb talis pars quinos habet angulos, latera totidem, 
utrinque quina lilia, unde pentacrinos Graecfe dici potest. Quemad- 
modum vero entrochus constat ex multis interdum trochitis, sic encrinos 
ex multis pentacrinis.”* 
It may not, however, be necessary to notice, in historic order, the 
opinions which were entertained respecting these bodies, or the various 
names which were applied to them : I shall, therefore, proceed to the 
examination of such of these bodies as seem particularly to claim our 
notice. 
A considerable variety is observable in the forms as well as in the 
markings on the surfaces of these bodies. Some are nearly circular, 
having a small circular hole in their centre, round which is disposed a 
pentaphylloidal figure, the spaces between which are filled with fan" 
Cordova, it appears that the remains of encrini are there very abundant, and assist in form- 
ing a marble of very beautiful appearance ; the animal remains, which are nearly white, 
being imbedded in a ground of a dark red colour. 
* De Natura Fossilium, Lib. V. Page 610. 
