REPORT ON GEOLOGY. 
spared us! Nor can we even yet pronounce that our know¬ 
ledge of the general structure of the earth’s surface is sufficiently 
advanced, or a hasty spirit of speculation sufficiently moderated, 
to render the same caution inapplicable or superfluous in the 
present day. 
Another distinguished philosopher of the same age, well 
worthy of being mentioned in connexion with Leibnitz, our 
countryman Hooke, (who may almost be considered as having 
anticipated Newton in his application of the great principle 
of gravitation to the mechanical system of the universe,) affords 
an additional example that the greatest minds of this period 
fully appreciated the high importance of geological inquiries. 
Much of his posthumous works is dedicated to this subject, 
especially to the investigation of the arguments derived from 
geological phenomena in favour of the hypothesis of the vol¬ 
canic elevation of our continents. 
For the reason already assigned, I must pass equally rapidly 
over the many other interesting topics connected with the earlier 
history of our science, until Werner—closely, however, treading 
in the steps of his countrymen Lehman and Fuchsel—at length 
combined the results previously obtained into a more metho¬ 
dical and systematic arrangement, and, by the ardour of his 
genius and the influence of his popular lectures*, attracted to 
geology a degree of general attention which it had assuredly 
never before received. The previous labours, however, of 
* We are chiefly indebted to the reports of his pupils, especially to those of 
Jamieson, for our knowledge of Werner's general views as fully developed in 
his lectures, and these only; for his own two short publications, the Kurze 
Klassification and Essay on Veins , are confined to partial subjects. From these 
reports of his lectures, I feel convinced that it is to him we are indebted for the 
first general announcement, that the various species of organic remains grouped 
together in the rock formations bear a constant relation to the age of those for¬ 
mations : the Italians much earlier, and more recently Rouelle in France, had 
recognised their regular distribution in certain associated groups; but the dis¬ 
tribution to which they referred appears to have been, according to their views, 
rather topographical than stratigraphical, whereas Werner clearly regarded it in 
the latter light; thus he characterizes the transition limestone as containing coral- 
lites, encrinites, &c , which though not absolutely confined to this formation, 
yet gradually disappeared in the newer rocks, becoming replaced by other spe¬ 
cies which never appeared in the transition series. The organic remains of the 
floetz rocks he regarded as increasing in quantity and variety, the newer the 
formation; he particularly specifies the most characteristic fossil shells of the 
gryphite limestone, the muschelkalk, chalk, &c. We should also mention that 
during the progress of Werner’s observations, Saussure, in the excellent geo¬ 
logical agenda published at the conclusion " 1 of his Voyac/es , suggested the 
solution of the same great problem in the following terms, which state its con¬ 
ditions with the most admirable clearness and precision. “ Constater s’il y a 
des coquillages fossiles qui se trouvent dans les montagnes les plus anciennes, 
et non dans celles dune formation plus recente, et classer ainsi, s'il est possible^ 
les ages relatifs et les epoques de Vapparition des differentes especes .” 
