Another class of philosophers considered this as a pro cess compounded of the vegetable and mineral powers ; that stones vegetated, according to certain laws, somewhat analogous to crystallization, but determined by their origi nal seeds. These seeds were supposed to be always float ing in the air, and also diffused through the earth and the sea. Being exited to act, their vital principle attracted the requisite particles from the surrounding earth, and thus, to the prototype, or the disposing power inhe rent in the seed, was the nature of the fossil determined. The theory of Bertrand, if different from the preceding, which names Tournefort among its supporters, is not much less absurd. By him they were considered as links in cre ation, or as forms which united the inorganic with the or ganic world. But that we may dismiss these dreams, we shall name but one other of these theories, viz. that one according to which it was supposed that they were the rude materials prepared by the hands of nature for the future formation of similar existing and animated beings.
Such was the philosophy of the century before the last ; nor is it much to be wondered at when we rellect on the pursuits of those ages; on their credulity, their alchymy, their sympathies, spirits, and signatures. Ages far more remote had formed more correct and rational opinions on this subject. Xenophanes, in his philosophical inquiries, informs us, that the impressions of fishes were found in the quarries of Syracuse, and that the same fact had been ob served in Paros, whence he very properly inferred that, at sonic distant period, these places must have been cover ed by the sea. Nothing can indeed be more decided on this subject than what is said by Herodotus in his account of Egypt ; where, from the presence of shells, he infers that the sea bad once filled this valley. But even these are not the only authors among the ancients who were aware of the existence of fossils shells, and who attributed them to their true source, the sea. Eratosthenes had made the same observations; and it is also particularly noticed in the geography of Strabo. In later times marine remains were known to Pliny and others ; and, long after, Tertullian seems to have been the first person who conceived that they must have been deposited by the general deluge, and that they afforded physical proofs of that fact. How often this argument has since been resorted to for the same purposes, our readers need scarcely be told.
To return to later times, one of the first works in which any account of fossils of this nature was given was that of Gessner, on a variety of mineralogical subjects. His book
contains the catalogue of a collection belonging to Kent man, a German. In the seventeenth century such collec tions began to be more general. A description of the mu seum of Calceolarius of Verona was published in 1622; and not long after was also publisned the catalogue of Besler's collection. That of NVormius appeared in 1652; that of Spener in 1663 ; and that of Septala in 1668. Be tween 1669 and 1678 appeared the descriptions of the mu seums of the King of Denmark, of Cottorp, and of and in 1687 and 1695 fhe catalogues of Gresham College and of Petiver were published ; the former by Dr. Grew.
In the next century many works on this subject appear ed, and the number of fossils became of course considera bly increased ; although the opinions of many authors are marked by a most absurd credulity, or by those strange hypotheses which we have already mentioned. To enu merate them all would form a long catalogue, without effecting any useful purpose; wherefore we shall content ourselves with the names of a few only. On the continent of Europe we find the works of Caspar Schwenkfeld, Lach round, and Wagner, containing accounts of the fossils of Silesia, Hildesheim, and Switzerland. In our own coun try are the names of Llwyd, describing the fossils in the Ashmolean Museum ; that of Lawrence, accompanying an account of the shells of Norfolk ; and those of Dr. Morton and Dr. Leigh, which contain many interesting particulars relating to the fossils of Cheshire, Lancashire, and Derby shire. But of all these publications, by far the most valu able is that of Woodward, descriptive of the extensive collection still preserved in the University of Cambridge. We need not carry this sketch any lower. The value of the subject has long been understood, and the field has been cultivated by so many, that even the titles of their works would fill no small portion of our pages.
But we must not quit this part of our subject without naming him to whom has been given, in modern times, the credit of the first correct notions respecting the nature of organic remains. Bernard Palissy, a potter in Paris, maintained, in opposition to the opinions then current, that fossil shells were really the shells of animals that had been deposited by the sea, and that the images of fishes some times found in stones were actual impressions produced by the animals themselves.