Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume XII.djvu/821

Rh earth's surface, and was considered conclusive evidence that the rocks containing them had been formerly submerged beneath the ocean. It was only in the beginning of the 16th century, when Christian nations turned their attention to geological phenomena, that fanciful opinions were promulgated, attributing these forms to "sports of nature," lusus naturæ, "the plastic force of nature," which effected these resemblances; or that, dating from the first creation, they were produced at the time of the formation of crystals or of the mountains themselves. More than a century was required to disprove this dogma; and an additional period of a century and a half was consumed in exploding the hypothesis that organized bodies had all been buried in the solid strata by Noah's flood. During this time, however, there were not wanting those who maintained more rational opinions. In the early part of the 16th century Leonardo da Vinci, having planned and superintended some canals in the north of Italy, opposed these views, asserting that the mud of rivers flowing into the sea had covered and penetrated into the interior of the shells when they were still beneath the water. Soon after this Fracastoro, on occasion of some excavations made about the city of Verona, declared his opinion that fossil shells had all belonged to living animals, which existed and multiplied in the positions where their remains are now found. In 1552 Cardan maintained that the former presence of the sea was clearly indicated by the petrified shells. In 1580 Palissy maintained the animal origin of fossil remains, and, as is said by Fontenelle, was the first who ventured to assert, in Paris, that fossil remains of testacea and fishes had once belonged to marine animals. In 1592 Fabio Colonna combated many of the erroneous theories of his day, and was the first to point out that some fossils had belonged to marine and some to terrestrial testacea. About the year 1597 Cæsalpinus maintained that fossil shells were those which had been left on land by the retiring waters of the sea, and had concreted into stone daring the consolidation of the soil; and Majole, coinciding with these views, suggested that these shells with the materials containing them had been thrown up by volcanic action, similar to that which produced the Monte Nuovo, near Pozzuoli, in 1538. This appears to have been the first attempt to connect the occurrence of fossil shells at high elevations with volcanic agencies. These views were subsequently more fully developed by Hooke, Moro, and Hutton, the last two centuries after Majole. During these discussions in the 16th century large collections of fossil shells and other remains had been accumulated in private cabinets and public museums, notably in that of the Vatican in Rome, and that of the museo calceolario at Verona, which was perhaps the most famous of its time. Still the progress of scientific truth was slow. The first half of the 17th century passed away without any real advance in the views of men regarding the origin of fossils. There were many writers on the subject, who put forth the most absurd and fantastic hypotheses, all more or less yielding to the established prejudices of the period regarding the age of the world and the early conditions of things. In 1669, while it was still a prevailing opinion that fossil shells and other marine objects were not of animal origin, Steno, a Dane, previously a professor of anatomy at Padua, published his remarkable work De Solido intra Solidum naturaliter contento. In this he compared the shells discovered in Italian strata with their living representatives, and traced the gradations from shells which had only lost their animal gluten to those in which there had been an entire substitution of mineral matter. He demonstrated that the teeth and bones of a modern shark were identical in general character with remains found in Tuscany. He also distinguished between marine and fluviatile deposits, the latter containing remains of seeds, grasses, and trunks and leaves of trees. In 1670 Scilla, a Sicilian painter, published a treatise on the fossils of Calabria, illustrated by good engravings; but, like many eminent men of his time, he regarded all fossil shells as proofs of the Mosaic deluge. At the same period the theologians of Italy, Germany, France, and England maintained that it was an imputation upon the sacred writings to deny that fossil organic remains were proofs of the deluge. It will be seen that from the first the Italians have been preeminently investigators in geological science; and among those who in the 18th century advanced the most philosophical views regarding organic remains, and their origin and importance, may be named Vallisnieri in 1721, Spada in 1737, Moro in 1740, Generelli in 1749, and Donati in 1750. In 1754 Torrubia published a treatise on "The Natural History of Spain," in which is given an extensive list of localities of fossils in Great Britain and the continent of Europe, Siberia, China, the Molucca islands, and elsewhere. In 1758 the botanist Gesner of Zürich published a treatise "On Petrifactions, and the Changes in the Earth which they testify." In the north of Europe the names of Bromel and Linnæus became associated with the study of fossil organic remains in the middle of the 18th century. In 1790 William Smith, civil engineer, published a "Tabular View of British Strata," tracing the continuity of the secondary formations over extensive areas, and recognizing them by their contained fossils. The value of the subject of fossil organic remains began now to be appreciated in France; and the names of Cuvier, Brongniart, Lamarck, and De France are associated with the scientific investigations in this department of knowledge in the early part of the 19th century. The studies of Cuvier in comparative osteology of the living and fossil vertebrates, of Lamarck and others in the mollusca,