Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/historymethodsof00mars_0 
 
'■'M 1 
 
 HISTORY AND METHODS 
 
 PALiEOMOLOGICAL DISCOVERY. 
 
 AlSf ADDRESS, 
 
 DELIVERED BEFORE THE 
 
 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, 
 AT SARATOGA, N. Y., AUGUST 28, 1879, 
 
 Professor 0. C. MARSH, 
 
 President, 
 
12320 
 
 MAHSH (Othlel C.) 
 
 History and Methods of Palaeontological Discovery. An Address delivered before 
 the American Association for the Advancement of Science at Saratoga, N.Y. August 28, 
 1873* Dp. 50# &oy# 8vo, orig. wrappers. [N.p.d.] 
 
 Presentation copy from the author. Scholarly resum£ of the whole history of 
 palaeontology from Xenophanes of Colophon [500 B.C.] to modern times. 
 
HISTORY AND METHODS 
 
 OP 
 
 PALEONTOLOGICAL DISCOVERY. 
 
 AE ADDRESS, 
 
 DELIVERED BEFORE THE 
 
 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, 
 AT SARATOGA, N. Y., AUGUST 28, 1879, 
 
 BY 
 
 Professor 0. C. MARSH, 
 
 President, 
 
9J?an mag tie lebenbtgen SBtrfungen ber 9?atur im ©anjen unb ©ro£en uberfefyen, 
 ober man mag bie UeberMeibfel ifjrer entflo^enen ©eifter jergltebern: fte bleibt 
 immer gletd), immer rneljr bemunberungSmurbtg.—© o e tl) e. 
 
. hM 
 
 HISTORY AND METHODS OF PALEONTOLOGICAL 
 DISCOVERY. 
 
 “S Co 
 
 N 55 h 
 
 I 
 
 In the rapid progress of knowledge, we are constantly 
 brought face to face with the question, What is Life ? The 
 answer is not yet, hut a thousand earnest seekers after truth 
 seem to be slowly approaching a solution. This question gives 
 a new interest to every department of science that relates to 
 life in any form, and the history of life offers a most sug¬ 
 gestive held for research. One line of investigation lies 
 through embryology, and here the advance is most encourag¬ 
 ing. Another promising path leads back through the life 
 history of the globe, and in this direction we may hope for 
 increasing light, as a reward for patient work. 
 
 The plants and animals now living on the earth interest alike 
 the savage and the savant, and hence have been carefully 
 observed in every age of human history. The life of the 
 remote past, however, is preserved only in scanty records, 
 buried in the earth, and therefore readily escapes attention. 
 For these reasons, the study of ancient life is one of the latest 
 of modern sciences, and among the most difficult. In view of 
 the great advances which this department of knowledge has 
 made within the last decade, especially in this country, I have 
 thought it fitting to the present occasion to review briefly 
 its development, and have chosen for my subject this even¬ 
 ing, The History and Methods of Palaeontological 
 Discovery. 
 
4 
 
 In the short time now at my command, I can only attempt 
 to present a rapid sketch of the principal steps in the progress 
 of this science. The literature of the subject, especially in 
 connection with the discussions it provoked, is voluminous, 
 and an outline of the history itself must suffice for my present 
 purpose. 
 
 In looking over the records of Palaeontology, its history may 
 conveniently be divided into four periods, well marked by 
 prominent features, but, like all stages of intellectual growth, 
 without definite boundaries. 
 
 The first period, dating back to the time when men first 
 noticed fossil remains in the rocks, and queried as to their 
 nature, is of special historic interest. The most prominent 
 characteristic of this period was, a long and bitter contest as 
 to the nature of fossil remains. Were they mere “ sports of 
 Hature,” or had they once been endowed with life ? Simple as 
 this problem now seems, centuries passed before the wise men 
 of that time were agreed upon its solution. 
 
 Sea shells in the solid rock on the tops of mountains early 
 attracted the attention of the ancients, and the learned men 
 among them seem to have appreciated in some instances 
 their true character, and given rational explanations of their 
 presence. 
 
 The philosopher Zenophanes, of Colophon, who lived about 
 500 B. C., mentions the remains of fishes and other animals 
 in the stone quarries near Syracuse; the impression of an 
 anchovy in the rock of Paros, and various marine fossils at 
 other places. His conclusion from these facts was, that the 
 surface of the earth had once been in a soft condition at the 
 bottom of the sea; and thus the objects mentioned were 
 entombed. Herodotus, half a century later, speaks of marine 
 shells on the hills of Egypt, and over the Libyan desert, and he 
 inferred therefrom that the sea had once covered that whole 
 region. Empedocles, of Agrigentum (450 B. C.), believed 
 
5 
 
 40 
 
 that the many hippopotamus bones found in Sicily were 
 remains of human giants, in comparison with which the pres¬ 
 ent race were as children. Here, he thought, was a battle 
 held between the gods and the Titans, and the bones belonged 
 to the slain. Pythagoras (582 B. C.) had already anticipated 
 one conclusion of modern geology, if the following statement, 
 attributed to him by Ovid, was his own :* 
 
 Vidi ego quod fuerat solidissima tellus, 
 
 Esse fretum : vidi factas ex sequore terras ; 
 
 Et procul a pelago conchae jacuere marinse. 
 
 Aristotle (384-322 B. C.) was not only aware of the exist¬ 
 ence of fossils in the rocks, but has also placed on record saga¬ 
 cious views as to the changes in the earth’s surface necessary 
 to account for them. In the second book of his Meteorics, he 
 says : “ The changes of the earth are so slow in comparison to 
 the duration of our lives, that they are overlooked ; and the 
 migrations of people after great catastrophes and their removal 
 to other regions, cause the event to be forgotten.” Again, in 
 the same work, he says: “As time never fails, and the universe 
 is eternal, neither the Tanais, nor the Nile, can have flowed 
 for ever. The places where they rise were once dry, and there 
 is a limit to their operations : but there is none to time. So 
 of all other rivers ; they spring up, and they perish ; and the 
 sea also continually deserts some lands and invades others. 
 The same tracts, therefore, of the earth are not, some always 
 sea, and others always continents, but everything changes in 
 the course of time.” 
 
 Aristotle’s views on the subject of spontaneous generation 
 were less sound, and his doctrines on this subject exerted a 
 powerful influence for the succeeding twenty centuries. In 
 the long discussion that followed concerning the nature of 
 fossil remains, Aristotle’s views were paramount. He believed 
 that animals could originate from moist earth or the slime of 
 rivers, and this seemed to the people of that period a much 
 
 * Metamorphoses, Liber XV, 262. 
 
6 
 
 simpler way of accounting for the remains of animals in the 
 rocks than the marvelous changes of sea and land otherwise 
 required to explain their presence. Aristotle’s opinion was in 
 accordance with the Biblical account of the creation of Man 
 out of the dust of the earth, and hence more readily obtained 
 credence. 
 
 Theophrastus, a pupil of Aristotle, alludes to fossil fishes 
 found near Heraclea, in Pontus, and in Paphlagonia, and says : 
 “ They were either developed from fish spawn left behind in 
 the earth, or gone astray from rivers or the sea into cavities of 
 the earth, where they had become petrified.” In treating of 
 fossil ivory and bones, the same writer supposed them to be 
 produced by a certain plastic virtue latent in the earth. To 
 this same cause, as we shall see, many later authors attributed 
 the origin of all fossil remains. 
 
 Previous to this, Anaximander, the Miletian philosopher, 
 who was born about 610 years before Christ, had expressed 
 essentially the same view. According to both Plutarch and 
 Censorinus, Anaximander taught that fishes, or animals very 
 like fishes, sprang from heated water and earth, and from these 
 animals came the human race; a statement which can hardly 
 be considered as anticipating the modern idea of evolution, as 
 some authors have imagined. 
 
 The Bomans added but little to the knowledge possessed by 
 the Greeks in regard to fossil remains. Pliny (23-79 A. H), 
 however, seems to have examined such objects with interest, 
 and in his renowned work on Natural History gave names 
 to several forms. He doubtless borrowed largely from Theo¬ 
 phrastus, who wrote about three hundred years before. Among 
 the objects named by Pliny were, “ Bucardia , like to an ox’s 
 heart“ Brontia , resembling the head of a tortoise, supposed 
 to fall in thunder storms;” “ Glossojotra, similar to a human 
 tongue, which does not grow in the earth, but falls from 
 heaven while the moon is eclipsed “ the Horn of Ammon , 
 possessing, with a golden color, the figure of a ram’s horn 
 
 e 
 
7 
 
 Ceraunia and Ombria , supposed to be thunderbolts; Ostra- 
 cites , resembling the oyster shell; Sjpongites , having the form 
 of sponge ; Phycites , similar to sea-weed or rushes. He also 
 mentions stones resembling the teeth of hippopotamus; and 
 says that Theophrastus speaks of fossil ivory, both black and 
 white, of bones born in the earth, and of stones bearing the 
 figure of bones. 
 
 Tertullian (160 A. D.) mentions instances of the remains 
 of sea animals on the mountains, far from the sea, but uses 
 them as a proof of the general deluge recorded in Scripture. 
 
 During the next thirteen or fourteen centuries, fossil remains 
 of animals and plants seemed to have attracted so little atten¬ 
 tion, that few references are made to them by the writers of 
 this period. During these ages of darkness, all departments of 
 knowledge suffered alike, and feeble repetitions of ideas de¬ 
 rived from the ancients seem to have been about the only 
 contributions of that period to Natural Science. 
 
 Albert the Great (1205-1280 A. D.), the most learned man 
 of his time, mentions that a branch of a tree was found, on 
 which was a bird’s nest containing birds, the whole being solid 
 stone. He accounted for this strange phenomenon by the ms 
 formativa of Aristotle, an occult force, which, according to the 
 prevalent notions of the time, was capable of forming most of 
 the extraordinary objects discovered in the earth. 
 
 Alexander db Alexandro , of Naples, states that he saw, in 
 the mountains of Calabria, a considerable distance from the 
 sea, a variegated hard marble, in which many sea shells but 
 little changed were heaped, forming one mass with the marble. 
 
 With the beginning of the sixteenth century, a great impetus 
 was given to the investigation of organic fossils, especially in 
 Italy, where this study really began. The discovery of fossil 
 shells, which abound in this region, now attracted great atten¬ 
 tion, and a fierce discussion soon arose as to the true nature of 
 these and other remains. The ideas of Aristotle in regard to 
 
8 
 
 spontaneous generation, and especially his view of the hidden 
 forces of the earth, which he claimed had power to produce 
 such remains, now for the first time were seriously ques¬ 
 tioned, although it was not till nearly two centuries later that 
 these doctrines lost their dominant influence. 
 
 Leonardo da Vinci, the renowned painter and philosopher, 
 who was horn in 1452, strongly opposed the commonly accepted 
 opinions as to the origin of organized fossils. He claimed that 
 the fossil shells under discussion were what they seemed, and 
 had once lived at the bottom of the sea. “You tell me,” he 
 says, “ that Nature and the influence of the stars have formed 
 these shells in the mountains; then show me a place in the 
 mountains where the stars at the present day make shelly forms 
 of different ages, and of different species in the same place.” 
 Again, he says, “In what manner can such a cause account 
 for the petrifactions in the same place of various leaves, sea¬ 
 weeds, and marine crabs ?” 
 
 In 1517, excavations in the vicinity of Verona brought to 
 light many curious petrifactions, which led to much specu¬ 
 lation as to their nature and origin. Among the various 
 authors who wrote on this subject was Fracastoro, who declared 
 that the fossils once belonged to living animals, which had 
 lived and multiplied where found. He ridiculed the prevailing 
 ideas that the plastic force of the ancients could fashion stones 
 into organic forms. Some writers claimed that these shells 
 had been left by Noah’s flood, hut to this idea Fracastoro 
 offered a mass of evidence, which would now seem conclusive, 
 hut which then only aroused hitter hostility. That inundation, 
 he said, was too transient; it consisted mainly of fresh water ; 
 and if it had transported shells to great distances, must have 
 scattered them over the surface, not buried them in the 
 interior of mountains. 
 
 Conrad Gesner (1516-1565), whose history of animals has 
 been considered the basis of modern zoology, published at 
 Zurich in 1565 a small hut important work entitled u De omni 
 rerum fossilium genere .” It contained a catalogue of the 
 
9 
 
 collection of fossils made by John Kentmann. This is the 
 oldest catalogue of fossils witli which I am acquainted. 
 
 George Agricola (1494-1555) was, according to Cuvier, the 
 first mineralogist who appeared after the revival of learning in 
 Europe. In his great work, “De lie Metallica ,” published in 
 1546, he mentions various fossil remains, and says they were 
 produced by a certain “ materia jpinguis ,” or fatty matter, set 
 in fermentation by heat. Some years later, Bauhin published 
 a descriptive catalogue of the fossils he had collected in the 
 neighborhood of Boll, in Wurtemberg.* 
 
 Andrew Mattioli, a distinguished botanist, adopted Agricola’s 
 notion as to the origin of organized fossils, but admitted that 
 shells and bones might be turned into stone by being permeated 
 by a “lapidifying juice.” Ealloppio, the eminent professor 
 of anatomy at Padua, believed that fossil shells were generated 
 by fermentation where they were found ; and that the tusks of 
 elephants, dug up near Apulia, were merely earthy concretions. 
 Mercati, in 1574, published figures of the fossil shells preserved 
 in the Museum of the Vatican, but expressed the opinion that 
 they were only stones, that owed their peculiar shapes to the 
 heavenly bodies. Olivi, of Cremona, described the fossils in the 
 Museum at Yerona, and considered them all “ sports of nature.” 
 
 Palissy, a French author, in 1580, opposed these views, and 
 is said to have been the first to assert in Paris that fossil shells 
 and fishes had once belonged to marine animals. Fabio Colonna 
 appears to have first pointed out that some of the fossil shells 
 found in Italy w T ere marine, and some terrestrial. 
 
 Another peculiar theory discussed in the sixteenth century 
 deserves mention. This was the vegetation theory, especially 
 advocated by Tournefort and Camerarius, both eminent as 
 botanists. These writers believed that the seeds of minerals 
 and fossils were diffused throughout the sea and the earth, and 
 were developed into their peculiar forms by the regular incre¬ 
 ment of their particles, similar to the formation of crystals. 
 
 * Historia novi et admirabilis Fontis Balneique Bollensis , in Ducaiu Wirtem- 
 bergico. Montbeliard , 1598. 
 
 9 
 
“ How could the Cornu Ammonis ,” Tournefort asked, “ which 
 is constantly in the figure of a volute, he formed without a 
 seed containing the same structure in the small, as in the 
 larger forms ? Who moulded it so artfully, and where are the 
 moulds ? ” The stalactites which formed in caverns in various 
 parts of the world were also supposed to be proofs of this 
 vegetative growth. 
 
 Still another theory has been held at various times, and is 
 not yet entirely forgotten, namely: that the Creator made 
 fossil animals and plants just as they are found in the rocks, 
 in pursuance of a plan beyond our comprehension. This 
 theory has never prevailed among those familiar with scientific 
 facts, and hence needs here no further consideration. 
 
 An interest in fossil remains arose in England later than on 
 the continent; but when attention was directed to them, 
 the first opinions as to their origin were not less fanciful and 
 erroneous than those to which we have already referred. Dr. 
 Plot, in his “Natural History of Oxfordshire,” published in 
 1677, considered the origin of fossil shells and fishes to be due 
 to a “ plastic virtue, latent in the earth,” as Theophrastus had 
 suggested long before. Lhwyd, in his “LithojpJiylacii Britan- 
 nici Ichnograjphia ,” published at Oxford in 1699, gives a cata¬ 
 logue of English fossils contained in the Ashmolean Museum. 
 He opposed the vis jplastioa theory, and expressed the ojfinion 
 that the spawn of fishes and other marine animals had been 
 raised with the vapors from the sea, conveyed inland by clouds, 
 and deposited by rain, had permeated into the interior of the 
 earth, and thus produced the fossil remains we find in the 
 rocks. About this time several important works were pub¬ 
 lished in England by Dr. Martin Lister, which did much to 
 infuse, a true knowledge of fossil remains. He gave figures 
 of recent shells side by side with some of the fossil forms, so 
 that the resemblance became at once apparent. The fossil 
 species of shells he called “turbinated and bivalve stones,” 
 and adds, “ either these were terriginous, or, if otherwise, the 
 animals which they so exactly represent have become extinct.” 
 
11 
 
 During tlie seventeenth century there was a considerable 
 advance in the study of fossil remains. The discussions in 
 regard to the nature and origin of these objects, had called 
 attention to them, and many collections were now made, espe¬ 
 cially in Italy, and also in Germany, where a strong interest 
 in this subject had been aroused. Catalogues of these collec¬ 
 tions were not unfrequently published, and some of them were 
 illustrated with such accurate figures, that many of the species 
 can now he readily recognized. In this century, too, an 
 important step in advance was made by the collection and 
 description of fossils from particular localities and regions, in 
 distinction from general collections of curiosities. 
 
 Casper Schwenkfeld, in 1600, published a catalogue of the 
 fossils discovered in Silesia ; in 1622, a detailed description of 
 the renowned Museum of Calceolarius, of Yerona, appeared; 
 and in 1642, a catalogue of Besler’s collection. Wormius’s cata¬ 
 logue was published in 1652 ; Spener’s in 1663 ; and Septala’s 
 in 1666. A description of the Museum of the King of Den¬ 
 mark was issued in 1669 ; Cottorp’s catalogue in 1614; and that 
 of the renowned Kirscher in 1618. Dr. Grew gave an account 
 in 1681 of the specimens in the Museum of Gresham’s College 
 in England; and in 1695, Petiver of London published a cata¬ 
 logue of his very extensive collection. A catalogue by Fred. 
 Lauchmund, on the fossils of Hildesliein, appeared in 1669, 
 and the fossils of Switzerland were described by John Jacob 
 Wagner in 1689. Among similar works, were the dissertations 
 of Gyer, at Frankfort, and Alhertus, at Leipsic. 
 
 Steno, a Dane, who had been professor of anatomy at Padua, 
 published, in 1669, one of the most important works of this 
 period.* He entered earnestly into the controversy as to the 
 origin of fossil remains, and by dissecting a shark from the 
 Mediterranean, proved that its teeth were identical with some 
 found fossil in Tuscany. He also compared the fossil shells 
 found in Italy with existing species, and pointed out their 
 resemblance. In the same work, Steno expressed some very 
 
 * Be solido intra solidum naturaliter contento. 
 
important views in regard to the different kinds of strata, and 
 their origin, and first placed on record the important fact that 
 the oldest rocks contain no fossils. 
 
 Scilla, the Sicilian painter, published in 1670 a work on the 
 fossils of Calabria, well illustrated. He is very severe against 
 those who doubted the organic origin of fossils, but is inclined 
 to consider them relics of the Mosaic deluge. 
 
 Another instance of the power of the lusus natural theory, 
 even at the close of the seventeenth century, deserves mention. 
 In the year 1696, the skeleton of a fossil elephant was dug up 
 at Tonna, near Gotha, in Germany, and was described by 
 William Ernest Tentzel, a teacher in the Gotha Gymnasium. 
 He declared the bones to be the remains of an animal that had 
 lived long before. The Medical Faculty in Gotha, however, 
 considered the subject, and decided officially that this specimen 
 was only a freak of nature. 
 
 Beside the authors I have mentioned, there were many 
 others who wrote about fossil remains before the close of the 
 seventeenth century, and took part in the general discussion as 
 to their nature and origin. During the progress of this con¬ 
 troversy the most fantastic theories were broached and stoutly 
 defended, and although refuted from time to time by a few 
 clear-headed men, continually sprang up anew, in the same or 
 modified forms. The influence of Aristotle’s views of equivo¬ 
 cal generation, and especially the scholastic tendency to dispu¬ 
 tation, so prevalent during the middle ages, had contributed 
 largely to the retardation of progress, and yet a real advance 
 in knowledge had been made. The long contest in regard to 
 the nature of fossil remains was essentially over, for the more 
 intelligent opinion' at the time now acknowledged that these 
 objects were not mere “ sports of nature,” but had once been 
 endowed with life. At this point, therefore, the first period 
 in the history of Palaeontology,* as I have indicated it, may 
 appropriately end. 
 
 It is true that later still, the old exploded errors about the 
 plastic force and fermentation were from time to time revived, 
 
13 
 
 as they have been almost to the present day; bnt learned men, 
 with few exceptions, no longer seriously questioned that fossils 
 were real organisms, as the ancients had once believed. The 
 many collections of fossils that had been brought together, and 
 the illustrated works that had been published about them, were 
 a foundation for greater progress, and, with the eighteenth cen¬ 
 tury, the second period in the history of Palaeontology began. 
 
 The main characteristic of this period was the general belief, 
 that fossil remains were deposited by the Mosaic deluge. W e 
 have seen that this view had already been advanced, but it was 
 not till the beginning of the eighteenth century that it became 
 the prevailing view. This doctrine was strongly opposed by 
 some courageous men, and the discussion on the subject soon 
 became even more bitter than the previous one, as to the 
 nature of fossils. 
 
 In this diluvial discussion theologians and laymen alike took 
 part. For nearly a century the former had it all their own 
 way, for the general public, then as now, believed what they 
 were taught. Noah’s flood was thought to have been universal, 
 and was the only general catastrophe of which the people of 
 that day had any knowledge or conception. 
 
 The scholars among them were of course familiar with the 
 accounts of Deucalion and his ark, in a previous deluge, as we 
 are to-day with similar traditions held by various races of men. 
 The firm belief that the earth and all it contains was created 
 in six days ; that all life on the globe was destroyed by the 
 deluge, except alone what Noah saved; and that the earth 
 and its inhabitants were to be destroyed by fire, was the foun¬ 
 dation on which all knowledge of the earth was based. With 
 such fixed opinions, the fossil remains of animals and plants 
 were naturally regarded as relics left by the flood described in 
 Holy Writ. The dominant nature of this belief is seen in 
 nearly all the literature in regard to fossils published at this 
 time, and some of the works which then appeared have become 
 famous on this account. 
 
14 
 
 In 1710, David Biittner published a volume entitled “Rudera 
 Diluvii Testes .” He strongly opposed Lhwyd’s explanation 
 of the origin of fossils, and referred these objects directly to 
 the Flood. The most renowned work, however, of this time, 
 was published at Zurich, in 1726, by Scheuchzer, a physician 
 and naturalist, and professor in the University of Altorf. It 
 bore the title “Homo Dilumi Testis P The specimen upon 
 which this work was based was found at Oeningen, and was 
 regarded as the skeleton of a child destroyed by the Deluge. 
 The author recognized in this remarkable fossil, not merely the 
 skeleton, but also portions of the muscles, the liver, and the 
 brain. The same author was fortunate enough to discover, 
 subsequently, near Altorf, two fossil vertebrae, which he at 
 once referred to that “ Accursed race destroyed by the Flood!” 
 These, also, he carefully described and figured in his “Physiea 
 Sacra,” published at Ulm in 1731. Engravings of both were 
 subsequently given in the “ Copper-Bible.” Cuvier afterward 
 examined these interesting relics, and pronounced the skeleton 
 of the supposed child to be the remains of a gigantic 
 Salamander, and the two vertebrae to be those of an 
 Ichthyosaurus! 
 
 Another famous book appeared in Germany in the same year 
 in which Scheuclizer’s first volume was published. The author 
 was John Bartholomew Adam Beringer, professor at the Uni¬ 
 versity of Wurtzburg, and his great work* indirectly had an 
 important influence upon the investigation of fossil remains. 
 The history of the work is instructive, if only as an indication 
 of the state of knowledge at that date. Professor Beringer, in 
 accordance with views of his time, had taught his pupils that 
 fossil remains, or “ figured stones,” as they were called, were 
 mere “ sports of nature.” Some of his fun-loving students 
 reasoned among themselves, “ If Nature can make figured 
 stones in sport, why cannot we ?” Accordingly, from the soft 
 
 * Lithographia Wirceburgensis, ducentis lapidum figuratorum, a potiori , insecti- 
 formium, prodigiosis imaginibus exornaia. Wirceburgi, 1726. Edit. II. Franco- 
 furti et Lipsiae. 
 
limestone in the neighboring hills, they carved out figures of 
 marvelous and fantastic forms, and buried them at the localities 
 where the learned Professor was accustomed to dig for his 
 fossil treasures. His delight at the discovery of these strange 
 forms encouraged further production, and taxed the ingenuity 
 of these youthful imitators of Nature’s secret processes. At 
 last Beringer had a large and unique collection of forms, 
 new to him, and to science, which he determined to publish to 
 the world. After long and patient study, his work appeared, 
 in Latin, dedicated to the reigning prince of the country, and 
 illustrated with twenty-one folio plates. Soon after the book 
 was published, the deception practiced upon the credulous 
 Professor became known; and, in place of the glory he ex¬ 
 pected from his great undertaking, he received only ridicule 
 and disgrace. He at once endeavored to repurchase and 
 destroy the volumes already issued, and succeeded so far that 
 few copies of the first edition remain. His small fortune, 
 which had been seriously impaired in bringing out his grand 
 work, was exhausted in the effort to regain what was already 
 issued, as the price rapidly advanced in proportion as fewer 
 copies remained; and, mortified at the failure of his life’s 
 work, he died in poverty. It is said that some of his family, 
 dissatisfied with the misfortune brought upon them by this 
 disgrace and the loss of their patrimony, used a remaining copy 
 for the production of a second edition, which met with a large 
 sale, sufficient to repair the previous loss, and restore the 
 family fortune. This work of Beringer, in the end, exerted 
 an excellent influence upon the dawning science of fossil 
 remains. Observers became more cautious in announcing 
 supposed discoveries, and careful study of natural objects 
 gradually replaced vague hypotheses. 
 
 The above works, however, are hardly fair examples of the 
 literature on fossils during this part of the eighteenth century. 
 Scheuchzer had previously published his well-known “ Com¬ 
 plaint and Vindication of the Fishes,” illustrated with good 
 plates. Moro, in his work on “ Marine Bodies which are 
 
16 
 
 found in tlie Mountains,” 1740, showed the effects of volcanic 
 action in elevating strata, and causing faults. Yallisneri had 
 studied with care the marine deposits of Italy. Donati, in 
 1750, had investigated the Adriatic, and ascertained by sound¬ 
 ings that shells and corals were being imbedded in the deposits 
 there, just as they were found in the rocks. 
 
 John Gesner’s dissertation, u De Petrificatis ,” published at 
 Leyden in 1758, was a valuable contribution to the science. 
 He enumerated the various kinds of fossils, and the different 
 conditions in which they are found petrified, and stated that 
 some of them, like those at Oeningen, resembled the shells, 
 fishes, and plants of the neighboring region, while others, such 
 as Ammonites and Belemnites, were either unknown species, or 
 those found only in distant seas. He discusses the structure of 
 the earth at length, and speculates as to the causes of changes in 
 sea and land. He estimates that, at the observed rate of reces¬ 
 sion of the ocean, to allow the Appenines, whose summits are 
 filled with marine shells, to reach their present height, would 
 have taken about eighty thousand years, a period more than 
 “ ten times greater than the age of the universe.” He accord¬ 
 ingly refers the change to the direct command of the Deity, 
 as related by Moses, that, “ The waters should be gathered 
 together in one place, and the dry land appear.” 
 
 Voltaire (1694-1778), discussed geological questions and the 
 nature of fossils in several of his works, but his published 
 opinions are far from consistent. He ridiculed effectively and 
 justly the cosmogonists of his day, and showed, also, that he 
 knew the true nature of organic remains. Finding, however, 
 that theologians used these objects to confirm the Scriptural 
 account of the deluge, he changed his views, and accounted for 
 fossil shells found in the Alps, by suggesting that they were 
 Eastern species, dropped by the pilgrims on their return from 
 the Holy Land ! 
 
 Buffon, in 1749, published his important work on Natural 
 History, and included in it his “ Theory of the Earth,” in 
 which he discussed, with much ability, many points in Geology. 
 
 6 
 
I 
 
 17 
 
 Soon after the hook was published, he received an official letter 
 from the Faculty of Theology in Paris, stating that fourteen 
 propositions in his works were reprehensible, and contrary to 
 the creed of the church. The first objectionable proposition 
 was as follows : “ The waters of the sea have produced the 
 mountains and valleys of the land,—the waters of the heavens 
 reducing all to a level, will at last deliver the whole land over 
 to the sea, and the sea successively prevailing over the land, 
 will leave dry new continents like those we inhabit.” 
 
 Buffon was politely requested by the college to recant, and 
 having no particular desire to he a martyr to science, submitted 
 the following declaration, which he was required to publish in 
 his next work: “ I declare that I had no intention to contra¬ 
 dict the text of Scripture ; that I believe most firmly all 
 therein related about the creation, both as to order of time and 
 matter of fact; and I abandon everything in my hook respect¬ 
 ing the formation of the earth, and, generally, all which may 
 he contrary to the narration of Moses.” 
 
 This single instance will suffice to indicate one great obsta¬ 
 cle to the advancement of science, even up to the middle of 
 the eighteenth century. 
 
 Another important work appeared in France about this time, 
 Bourguet’s “Traite des Petrifactions ,” published in 1758, which 
 is well illustrated with faithful plates. In England, a discourse 
 on earthquakes, by Dr. Robert Flooke, was published in 1705. 
 This author held some views in advance of his time, and main¬ 
 tained that figured stones were “ really the several bodies they 
 represent or the moldings of them petrified, and not, as some 
 have imagined, a lusus naturaz , sporting herself in the needless 
 formation of useless things.” He anticipates one important 
 conclusion from fossils, when he states that “ though it must 
 he very difficult to read them and to raise a chronology out of 
 them, and to state the intervals of time wherein such or such 
 catastrophes and mutations have happened, yet it is not im¬ 
 possible.” He also states that fossil turtles, and such large 
 Ammonites as are found in Portland, seem to have been the 
 3 
 
productions of liotter countries, and lienee it is necessary to 
 suppose that England once lay under the sea within the torrid 
 zone. He seems to have suspected that some of the fossils of 
 England belonged to extinct species, but thought they might 
 possibly be found living in the bottom of distant oceans. 
 
 Dr. Woodward’s “Natural History of the Fossils of Eng¬ 
 land” appeared in 1729. This work was based on a systematic 
 collection of fossils which he had brought together, and which 
 he subsequently bequeathed to the University of Cambridge, 
 where it is still preserved, with his arrangement carefully 
 retained. This descriptive part of this work is interesting, but 
 his conclusions are made to coincide strictly with the Scriptural 
 account of the creation and deluge. He had previously stated, 
 in another work, that he believed, “ the whole terrestrial globe 
 to have been taken to pieces and dissolved at the flood, and the 
 strata to have settled down from this promiscuous mass.” In 
 support of this view, he stated that, “Marine bodies are lodged 
 in the strata according to the order bf their gravity, the heavier 
 shells in stones, the lighter in chalk, and so of the rest.”* 
 
 The most important w T ork on fossils published in Germany 
 at this time, was that of George Wolfgang Knorr, which was 
 continued after his death by Walcli. This work consisted of 
 four folio volumes, with many plates, and was printed at 
 Nuremberg, 1755-73. A large number of fossils were accu¬ 
 rately figured and described, and the work is one of permanent 
 value.f A French translation of this work appeared in 
 1767-78. Burton’s “Oryctographie de Bruxelles ,” 1784, con¬ 
 tains figures and descriptions of fossils found in Belgium. 
 
 Abraham Gottlieb Werner (1750-1817), Professor of Min¬ 
 eralogy at Freyberg, did much to advance the science of 
 Geology, and indirectly, that of fossils. He first indicated the 
 relations of the main formations to each other, and, according 
 to his pupil, Professor Jameson, first made the highly important 
 
 * Essay towards a Natural History of the Earth. 1695. 
 
 f Lapid.es ex celeberr. viror. sententia diluvii universalis testes, quos in ordines ac 
 species distribuit, suis coloribus expremit , etc. 272 Tab. 1755-73. 
 
19 
 
 observation “that different formations can be discriminated 
 by tbe petrifactions they contain.” Moreover, “ that the petri¬ 
 factions contained in the oldest rocks are very different from 
 any of the species of the present time ; that the newer the 
 formation, the more do the remains approach in form to the 
 organic beings of the present creation.” Unfortunately, 
 Werner published little, and his doctrines were mainly dis¬ 
 seminated by his enthusiastic pupils. 
 
 The great contest between the Yulcanists and the Neptunists 
 started at this time, mainly through Werner, whose doctrines 
 led to the controversy. The comparative merits of tire and 
 water, as agencies in the formation of certain rocks, were dis¬ 
 cussed with a heat and acrimony characteristic of the subject 
 and the time. Werner believed in the aqueous theory, while 
 the igneous theory was especially advocated by Hutton of Edin¬ 
 burgh, and his illustrator, Playfair. This discussion resulted 
 in the advancement of descriptive geology, but the study of 
 fossils gained little thereby. 
 
 The “ Protogaea ” of Leibnitz, the great mathematician, pub¬ 
 lished in 1749, about thirty years after his death, was a work 
 of much merit. This author supposed that the earth had 
 gradually cooled from a state of igneous fusion, and was subse¬ 
 quently covered with water. The subsidence of the lower part 
 of the earth, the deposits of sedimentary strata from inunda¬ 
 tions, and their induration, as well as other changes, followed. 
 All this, he supposed to have been accomplished in a period of 
 six natural days. In the same work Leibnitz shows that he 
 had examined fossils with considerable care. 
 
 Linnaeus (1707-1778), the famous Swedish botanist, and the 
 founder of the modern system of nomenclature in Natural 
 History, confined his attention almost entirely to the living 
 forms. Although he was familiar with the literature of fossil 
 remains, and had collected them himself, he did not include 
 them in his system of plants and animals, but kept them sepa¬ 
 rate, with the minerals; hence he did little directly to advance 
 this branch of science. 
 
20 
 
 During tlie last quarter of the eighteenth century, the belief 
 that fossil remains were deposited by the Deluge sensibly 
 declined, and the dawn of a new era gradually appeared. Let 
 us pause for a moment here, and see what real progress had 
 been made; what foundation had been laid on which to estab¬ 
 lish a science of fossil remains. 
 
 The true nature of these objects had now been clearly deter¬ 
 mined. They were the remains of animals and plants. Most 
 of them certainly were not the relics of the Mosaic Deluge, 
 but had been deposited long before, part in fresh water and 
 part in the sea. Some indicated a mild climate, and some the 
 tropics. That any of these were extinct species, was as yet 
 only suspected. Large collections of fossils had now been 
 made, and valuable catalogues, well illustrated, had been pub¬ 
 lished. Something was known, too, of the geological position 
 of fossils. Steno, long before, had observed that the lowest 
 rocks were without life. Lehmann had shown that above 
 these primitive rocks, and derived from them, were the sec¬ 
 ondary strata, full of the records of life; and above these were 
 alluvial deposits, which he referred to local floods, and the 
 Deluge of Hoah. Rouelle, Fuchsel, and Odoardi had shed 
 new light on this subject. Werner had distinguished the tran¬ 
 sition rocks, containing fossil remains, between the primitive 
 and the secondary, while everything above the chalk he grouped 
 together, as the “overflowed land.” Werner, as we have seen, 
 had done more than this, if we give him the credit his pupils 
 claim for him. ILe had found that the formations he examined 
 contained each its own peculiar fossils, and that from the older 
 to the newer there was a gradual approach to recent forms. 
 William Smith had worked out the same thing in England, and 
 should equally divide the honor , of this important discovery. 
 
 The greatest advance, however, up to this time, was that 
 men now preferred to observe , rather than to believe , and facts 
 were held in greater esteem than vague speculations. With 
 this preparation for future progress, the second period in the 
 history of Palaeontology, as I have divided it, may appropri¬ 
 ately be considered at an end. 
 
21 
 
 Tims far, I have said nothing in regard to one branch of 
 my subject, the rnethods of Palaeontological research, for up to 
 this time, of method there was none. We have seen that those 
 of the ancients who noticed marine shells in the solid rock, 
 called them such, and concluded that they had been left there 
 by the sea. The discovery of fossils led directly to theories of 
 how the earth was formed. Here the progress was slow. 
 Subterranean spirits were supposed to guard faithfully the 
 mysteries of the earth; while above the earth, Authority 
 guarded with still greater power the secrets men in advance 
 of their age sought to know. The dominant idea of the first 
 sixteen centuries of the present era was, that the universe 
 was made for Man. This was the great obstacle to the correct 
 determination of the position of the earth in the universe, and, 
 later, of the age of the earth. The contest of Astronomy 
 against authority was long and severe, but the victory was at 
 last with science. The contest of Geology against the same 
 power followed, and continued almost to our day. The result, 
 is still the same. In the early stages of this contest, there was 
 no strife, for science was benumbed by the embrace of super¬ 
 stition and creed, and little could be done till that was cast off. 
 In a superstitious age, when every natural event is referred to 
 a supernatural cause, science cannot live; and often as the 
 sacred fire may be kindled by courageous far-seeing souls, will 
 it be quenched by the dense mists of ignorance around it. 
 Scarcely less fatal to the growth of science is the age of 
 Authority, as the past proves too well. With freedom of 
 thought, came definite knowledge, and certain progress;—but 
 tw T o thousand years was long to wait. 
 
 With the opening of the present century, began a new era 
 in Palaeontology, which we may here distinguish as the third 
 period in its history. This branch of knowledge became now 
 a science. Method replaced disorder, and systematic study 
 superseded casual observation. For the next half century the 
 advance w T as continuous, and rapid. One characteristic of this 
 
22 
 
 period was, the accurate determination of fossils by compar¬ 
 ison with living forms. This will separate it from the two 
 former epochs. Another distinctive feature of this period was 
 the general belief that, every species , recent and extinct , was 
 a separate creation. 
 
 At the very beginning of the epoch we are now to consider, 
 three names stand out in bold relief: Cuvier, Lamarck, and 
 William Smith. To these men, the science of palaeontology 
 owes its origin. Cuvier and Lamarck, in France, had all the 
 power which great talent, education, and station could give; 
 William Smith, an English surveyor, was without culture or 
 influence. The last years of the eighteenth century had been 
 spent by each of these men in preparation for his chosen 
 work, and the results were now given to the world. Cuvier 
 laid the foundation of the palaeontology of Yertebrate animals; 
 Lamarck, of the Invertebrates ; and Smith established the prin¬ 
 ciples of Stratigraphical Palaeontology. The investigator of 
 fossils to-day seldom needs to consult earlier authors of the 
 science. 
 
 George Cuvier (1769-1832), the most famous naturalist of his 
 time, was led to the study of extinct animals by ascertaining 
 that the remains of fossil elephants he examined were extinct 
 species. “ This idea,” he says later, “ which I announced to 
 the Institute in the month of January 1796, opened to me 
 views entirely new respecting the theory of the earth, and 
 determined me to devote myself to the long researches and to 
 the assiduous labors which have now occupied me for twenty- 
 five years.”* 
 
 It is interesting to note here that in this first investigation 
 of fossil vertebrates, Cuvier employed the same method that 
 gave him such important results in his later researches. Remains 
 # of elephants had been known to Europe for centuries, and many 
 authors, from Pliny down to the contemporaries of Cuvier, had 
 written about them. Some had regarded the bones as those of 
 human giants, and those who recognized what they were consid¬ 
 ered them remains of the elephants imported by Hannibal or 
 * Ossemens Fossiles , Second Edition, Vol. I, p. 1*78. 
 
the Romans. Cuvier, however, compared the fossils directly 
 with the bones of existing elephants, and proved them to be 
 distinct. The fact that these remains belonged to extinct 
 species was of great importance. In the case of fossil shells, 
 it was difficult to say that any particular form was not living in 
 a distant ocean; but the two species of existing elephants, the 
 Indian and the African, were w T ell known, and there w r as hardly 
 a possibility that another living one would be found. 
 
 It is important to bear in mind, too, that Cuvier’s preparation 
 for the study of the remains of animals was far in advance of 
 any of his predecessors. He had devoted himself for years to 
 careful dissections in the various classes of the animal kingdom, 
 and was really the founder of comparative anatomy, as we now 
 understand it. Cuvier investigated the different groups of the 
 whole kingdom with care, and proposed a new classiiication 
 founded on the plan of structure, which in its main features is 
 the one in use to-day. The first volume of his Comparative 
 Anatomy appeared in 1800, and the work was completed in 
 five volumes in 1805. 
 
 Previous to Cuvier, the only general catalogue of animals 
 was contained in Linnaeus’ “ Systerna Natures?' In this work, 
 as we have seen, fossil remains were placed with the Minerals, 
 not in their appropriate places among the animals and plants. 
 Cuvier enriched the animal kingdom by the introduction 
 of fossil forms among the living, bringing all together into 
 one comprehensive system. His great work, “ Le Regne 
 Animal ,” appeared in four volumes, in 1817, and with its two 
 subsequent editions remains the foundation of modern zoology. 
 Cuvier’s classic work on vertebrate fossils—“ Recherehes sur 
 les Ossemens Fossiles ,” in four volumes, appeared in 1812-13. 
 Of this work, it is but just to say that it could only have been 
 written by a man of genius, profound knowledge, the greatest 
 industry, and with the most favorable opportunities. 
 
 The introduction to this work was the famous “Discourse 
 on the Revolutions of the Surface of the Globe,” which has 
 perhaps been as widely read as any other scientific essay. The 
 
24 
 
 discovery of fossil bones in the gypsum quarries of Paris, by 
 the workmen, who considered them human remains; the care¬ 
 ful study of these relics by Cuvier, and his restorations from 
 them of strange beasts that had lived long before, is a story 
 with which you are all familiar. Cuvier was the first to prove 
 that the earth had been inhabited by a succession of different 
 series of animals, and he believed that those of each period 
 were peculiar to the age in which they lived. 
 
 In looking over his work after a lapse of three-quarters of a 
 century, we can now see that Cuvier was wrong on some 
 important points, and failed to realize the direction in which 
 science was rapidly tending. With all his knowledge of the 
 earth, he could not free himself from tradition, and believed in 
 the universality and power of the Mosaic deluge. Again, he 
 refused to admit the evidence brought forward by his distin¬ 
 guished colleagues against the permanence of species, and used 
 all his great influence to crush out the doctrine of evolution, 
 then first proposed. Cuvier’s definition of a species, the domi¬ 
 nant one for half a century, was as follows: “ A species 
 comprehends all the individuals which descend from each 
 other, or from a common parentage, and those which resemble 
 them as much as they do each other.” 
 
 The law of “ Correlation of Structures,” as laid down by 
 Cuvier, has been more widely accepted than almost any thing 
 else that bears his name; and yet, although founded in truth, 
 and useful within certain limits, it would certainly lead to 
 serious error if applied widely in the way he proposed. 
 
 In his Discourse, he sums this law as follows: “ A claw, a 
 shoulder blade, a condyle, a leg or arm bone, or any other bone 
 separately considered, enables us to discover the description of 
 teeth to which they have belonged; so also reciprocally we 
 may determine the form of the other bones from the teeth. 
 Thus, commencing our investigation by a careful survey of any 
 one bone by itself, a person who is sufficiently master of the 
 laws of organic structure, may, as it were, reconstruct the 
 whole animal to which that bone had belonged.” 
 
We know to-day that unknown extinct animals cannot be 
 restored from a single tooth or claw, unless they are very 
 similar to forms already known. Had Cuvier, himself, applied 
 his methods to many forms from the early Tertiary or older 
 formations, he would have failed. If, for instance, he had had 
 before him the disconnected fragments of an Eocene Tillodont, 
 he would undoubtedly have referred a molar tooth to one of 
 his Pachyderms ; an incisor tooth to a Rodent; and a claw bone 
 to a Carnivore. The tooth of a Hesperornis would have given 
 him no possible hint of the rest of the skeleton, nor its swim¬ 
 ming feet the slightest clue to the ostrich-like sternum or skull. 
 And yet, the earnest belief in his own methods led Cuvier 
 to some of his most important discoveries. 
 
 Jean Lamarck (1744-1829), the philosopher and naturalist, 
 a colleague of Cuvier, was a learned botanist before he became 
 a zoologist. His researches on the invertebrate fossils of the 
 Paris Basin, although less striking, were not less important 
 than those of Cuvier on the vertebrates; while the conclu¬ 
 sions he derived from them form the basis of modern biology. 
 Lamarck’s method of investigation was the same, essentially, as 
 that used by Cuvier, namely: a direct comparison of fossils 
 with living forms. In this way, he soon ascertained that the 
 fossil shells imbedded in the strata beneath Paris were, many 
 of them, extinct species, and those of different strata differed 
 from each other. His first memoir on this subject appeared 
 in 1802,* and, with his later works, effected a revolution in 
 concliology. His “ System of Invertebrate Animals” appeared 
 the year before, and his famous “Philosophie Zoologique ,” in 
 1809. In these two works, Lamarck first announced the princi¬ 
 ples of Evolution. In the first volume of his “ Natural History 
 of Invertebrate Animals,”f he gave his theory in detail; and 
 to-day one can only read with astonishment his far-reaching 
 anticipations of modern science. These views were strongly 
 
 * Memoires sur les fossiles des environs de Paris. 1802-6. 
 
 \ Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebres. 1 vols. Paris, 1815-1822. 
 2d edition. 11 vols. 1835-1845. 
 
26 
 
 supported by Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, but bitterly opposed by 
 Cuvier; and tbeir great contest on this subject is well known. 
 
 In looking back from this point of view, the philosophical 
 breadth of Lamarck’s conclusions, in comparison with those 
 of Cuvier, is clearly evident. The invertebrates on which 
 Lamarck worked offered less striking evidence of change than 
 the various animals investigated by Cuvier; yet they led 
 Lamarck directly to Evolution, while Cuvier ignored what 
 Avas before him on this point, and rejected the proof offered 
 by others. Both pursued the same methods, and had an abun¬ 
 dance of material on which to work, yet the facts observed 
 induced Cuvier to believe in catastrophes; and Lamarck, in 
 the uniform course of nature. Cuvier declared species to be 
 permanent; Lamarck, that they were descended from others. 
 Both men stand in the first rank in science; but Lamarck 
 was the prophetic genius, half a century in advance of his time. 
 
 While the Paris Basin was yielding such important results 
 for Paleontology, its geological structure was being worked 
 out with great care. The results appeared in a volume by 
 Cuvier and Alex. Brongniart, chiefly the work of the latter, 
 published in 1808.* This was the first systematic investigation 
 of Tertiary strata. Three years later, the work was issued in 
 a more extended form. The separate formations were here 
 carefully distinguished by their fossils, the true importance of 
 which for this purpose being distinctly recognized. This 
 advance was not accepted without some opposition, and it is an 
 interesting fact that Jameson, who claimed for Werner the 
 theory here put in practice, rejected its application, and wrote 
 as follows: “ To Cuvier and Brongniart we are indebted for 
 much valuable information in their description of the country 
 around Paris, but we must protest against the use they have 
 made of fossil organic remains in their gcognostical descrip¬ 
 tions and investigations.’^ 
 
 * Essai sur la Geographie Mineralogique des environs de Paris. 4to, 1808. 
 
 f Translation of Cuvier’s Discourse. Note K. (B.), p. 103, 1817. 
 
 
27 
 
 William Smith (1769-1839), “ the father of English Geology,” 
 had previously published a “Tabular View of the British Strata.” 
 He appears to have arrived independently at essentially the 
 same view as Werner in regard to the relative position of strat¬ 
 ified rocks. lie had determined that the order of succession 
 was constant, and that the different formations might be identi¬ 
 fied at distant points by the fossils they contained. In his 
 later works, “Strata identified by Organized Fossils,” pub¬ 
 lished in 1816-20, and “ Stratigrapliical System of Organized 
 Fossils,” 1817, he gave to the world results of many years of 
 careful investigations on the Secondary formations of England. 
 In the latter work, he speaks of the success of his method in 
 determining strata by their fossils, as follows : “ My original 
 method of tracirlg the strata by the organized fossils imbedded 
 therein, is thus reduced to a science not difficult to learn. Ever 
 since the first written account of this discovery was circulated 
 in 1799, it has been closely investigated by my scientific 
 acquaintances in the vicinity of Bath, some of whom search the 
 quarries of different Strata in that district, with as much cer¬ 
 tainty of finding the characteristic Fossils of the respective 
 rocks, as if they were on the shelves of their cabinets.” 
 
 The systematic study of fossils now attracted attention in 
 England, also, and was prosecuted with considerable zeal, 
 although with less important results than in France. An ex¬ 
 tensive work on this subject, by James Parkinson, entitled 
 “ Organic Remains of a Former World,” was begun in 1804, 
 and completed in three volumes in 1811. A second edition 
 appeared in 1833. This work was far in advance of previous 
 publications in England, and, being well illustrated, did much 
 to make the collection and study of fossils popular. The belief 
 in the geological effects of the Deluge had not yet lost its 
 power, although restricted now to the later deposits; for Park¬ 
 inson in his later edition wrote as follows: “Why the earth 
 was at first so constituted that the deluge should be rendered 
 necessary—why the earth could not have been at first stored 
 with all those substances, and endued with all those properties 
 
which seemed to have proceeded from the deluge—why so many 
 beings were created, as it appears, for the purpose of being 
 destroyed — are questions which I presume not to answer.” 
 
 William Buckland (1784-1856), published in 1823 his cele¬ 
 brated “Reliquiae Diluviance ,” in which he gave the results of 
 his own observations in regard to the animal remains found in 
 the caves, fissures and alluvial gravels of England. The facts 
 presented are of great value, and the work was long a model 
 for similar researches. Buckland’s conclusions were, that none 
 of the human remains discovered in the caves were as old as 
 the extinct mammals found with them, and that the Deluge 
 was universal. In speaking of fossil bones found in the 
 Himalaya mountains, he says: “ The occurrence of these bones 
 at such an enormous elevation in the region of eternal snow, 
 and consequently in a spot now unfrequented by such animals 
 as the horse and deer, can, I think, be explained only by sup¬ 
 posing them to be of antediluvian origin, and that the carcasses 
 of the animals were drifted to their present place, and lodged 
 in sand, by the diluvial waters.” 
 
 The foundation of the “ Geological Society of London,” in 
 1807, marks an important point in the history of palaeontology. 
 To carefully collect materials for future generalizations, was 
 the object in view, and this organization gradually became 
 the centre in Great Britain for those interested in geological 
 science. The society was incorporated in 1826, and has since 
 been the leading organization in Europe for the advancement 
 of the sciences within its field. The Geological Society of 
 France, established at Paris in 1832, and the German Geologi¬ 
 cal Society, founded at Berlin in 1848, have likewise contribu¬ 
 ted largely to geological investigations in these countries, and 
 to some extent in other parts of the world. In the jmblications 
 of these three societies, the student of palaeontology will find a 
 mine of valuable materials for his work. 
 
 The systematic study of fossil Plants may be said to date 
 from the publication of Adolphe Brongniart’s “Prodrome” 
 
29 
 
 in 1828.* This was very soon followed by his larger work, 
 “Ilistoire des vegetaux fos sites” issued in 1828-48. Brong- 
 niart pursued the same method as Cuvier and Lamarck, viz: 
 the comparison of fossils with living forms, and his results 
 were of great importance. In his “ Tableau des genres vegetaux 
 fossiles ,” etc., published in Paris in 1849, he gives the classifica¬ 
 tion and distribution of the genera of fossil plants, and traces 
 out the historical progression of vegetable life on the globe, as 
 he had done to a great extent in his previous works. He 
 shows that the cryptogamic forms prevailed in the primary 
 formations; the conifers and cycads in the secondary, and the 
 higher forms in the Tertiary, while four fifths of living plants 
 are exogens. 
 
 In England, Lindley and Hutton published, in 1831-37, a 
 valuable wmrk in three volumes, entitled, “ Fossil Flora of 
 Great Britain.” This work was illustrated by many accurate 
 plates, in which the plants of the coal formation were especially 
 represented. Henry Witham also published two works in 1831 
 and 1833, in which he treated especially of the internal struc¬ 
 ture of fossil plants. “ Antediluvian Phytology,” by Artis, 
 was published in London in 1838. Bowerbank’s “ History of 
 the Fossil Fruits and Seeds of the London Clay,” appeared in 
 1843. Hooker’s memoir “On the Yegetation of the Carbon¬ 
 iferous Period as compared with that of the present day,” pub¬ 
 lished in 1848, was an important contribution to the science. 
 Bunbury, Williamson, and others, also published various 
 papers on fossil plants. This branch of Palseontology, how¬ 
 ever, attracted much less attention in England, than on the 
 Continent. 
 
 In Germany, the study of fossil plants dates back to the 
 beginning of the century. Yon Schlotheim, a pupil of Wer¬ 
 ner, published in 1804 an illustrated volume on this subject. 
 A more important work was that of Count Sternberg, issued 
 in 1820-38, and illustrated with excellent plates. Cotta in 
 1832 published a book with the title, “Die Dendrolithen ,” in 
 
 * Prodrome d'une histoire des vegetaux fossiles. 8vo. Paris, 1828. 
 
30 
 
 wliicli lie gave the results of his investigations on the inner 
 structure of fossil plants. Yon Gutbier in 1835, and Germar 
 in 1844-53, described and figured the plants of two important 
 localities in Germany. Corda’s “ Beitrage zur Flora der 
 Vorwelt ,” issued at Prague, in 1845, was essentially a continu¬ 
 ation of the work of Sternberg. Unger’s “ Chloris protogcea” 
 1841-45, “ Genera et species plantarum fossilium” 1850, and 
 his larger work published in 1852, are all standard authorities. 
 In the latter, the theory of descent is applied to the vegetable 
 world. Schimper and Mougeot’s “Monograph on the fossil 
 plants of the Vosges,” 1845, was well illustrated, and contained 
 noteworthy results. 
 
 Goppert, in 1836, published a valuable memoir entitled, 
 “ Systerna Filicum Fossilium ,” in which he made known the 
 results of his study of fossil ferns. In the same year, this 
 botanist began a series of experiments, in which he attempted 
 to imitate the process of fossilization, as found in nature. lie 
 steeped various animal and vegetable substances in waters hold¬ 
 ing, some calcareous, others siliceous, and others metallic matter 
 in solution. After a slow saturation, the substances were dried, 
 and exposed to heat until the organic matters were burned. 
 In this way Goppert successfully imitated various processes of 
 petrifaction, and explained many things in regard to fossils 
 that had previously been in question. His discovery of the 
 remains of plants throughout the interior of coal did much to 
 clear up the doubts about the formation of that substance. In 
 1841, Goppert published an important work in which he com¬ 
 pared the genera of fossil plants with those now living. In 
 1852, another extensive work by this author appeared, entitled, 
 u Fossile Flora des Uebergangs- Gebirges ” 
 
 Andrse, Braun, D linker, Ettirisgliausen, Geinitz, and Golden- 
 berg, all made notable contributions to fossil Botany in 
 Germany, during the period we are now considering. 
 
 The systematic study of invertebrate fossils, so admirably 
 begun by Lamarck, was continued actively in France. The 
 
31 
 
 Tertiary shells of the Seine valley were further investigated hy 
 Def ranee, and especially hy Deshayes, whose great work on 
 this subject was begun in 1824* DesMoulin’s essay on Sjpher- 
 ulites in 1826, Blainville’s memoir on Belemnites in 1827, 
 Ferussac’s various memoirs on land and fresh water fossil 
 shells, were valuable additions to the subject. A later work of 
 great importance was D’Orbigny’s Paleontologie Frangaise , 
 1840-44, which described the mollusca and radiates in detail, 
 according to formations. The other publications of this author 
 are both numerous and valuable. Brongniart and Desmarest’s 
 “Histoire naturelle des Crustaces Fossiles ,” published in 1822, 
 is a pioneer work on this subject. Michelins’ memoir on the 
 fossil corals of France, 1841-46, was another important contri¬ 
 bution to palaeontology. Agassiz’s works on fossil Echinoderms 
 and Mollusks are valuable contributions to the science. The 
 works of d’Archiac, Coquand, Cotteau, Desor, Edwards, Ilaime, 
 and De Verneuil, are likewise of permanent value. 
 
 In Italy, Bellardi, Merian, Michellotti, Pliillipi, Zigno, and 
 others, contributed important results to Palaeontology. 
 
 In Belgium, Bosquet, Nyst, Koninck, Byckholt, Yan Ben- 
 eden, and others, have all aided materially in the progress of 
 the science. 
 
 In England, also, invertebrate fossils were studied with care, 
 and continued progress was made. Sowerby’s “ Mineral Concli- 
 ology of Great Britain,” in six volumes, a systematic work of 
 great value, was published in 1812-30, and soon after was trans¬ 
 lated into French and German. Its figures of fossil shells are 
 excellent, and it is still a standard work. Miller’s “ Natural 
 History of the Crinoidea,” published at Bristol, in 1821, and 
 Austin’s later monograph, are valuable for reference. Brown’s 
 “ Fossil Conchology of Britain and Ireland” appeared in 1839, 
 and Brodie’s History of the Fossil Insects of England, in 1845. 
 Phillips’ illustration of the geology of Yorkshire, 1829-36, and 
 his work on the Palseozoic fossils of Cornwall, Devonshire, and 
 West Somerset, 1843, contained a great deal of original matter 
 
 * Description des coquilles fossiles des environs de Paris. 3 vols. Paris, 1824-37. 
 
32 
 
 in regard to fossil remains. Morris’ “ Catalogue of British 
 Fossils,” issued in 1843, and the later edition in 1854, is most 
 useful to the working paleontologist. The memoirs of David¬ 
 son on the Brachiopoda, Edwards, Forbes, Morris, Lycett, 
 Sharpe, and Wood on other Mollusca, Wright on the Echino- 
 derms, Salter on Crustacea, Busk on Polyzoa, Jones on the 
 Entomostraca, and Duncan and Lonsdale on Corals, are of 
 especial value. King’s volume on Permian fossils, Mantell’s 
 various memoirs, Dixon’s work on the fossils of Sussex, 1850, 
 and McCoy’s works on Palaeozoic fossils, all deserve honorable 
 mention. Sedgwick, Murchison, and Lyell, although their 
 greatest services were in systematic geology, each contributed 
 important results to the kindred science of palaeontology during 
 the period we are reviewing. 
 
 In Germany, Schlotheim’s treatise, “ Die Petrifactenkunde ,” 
 published at Gotha in 1820, did much to promote a general 
 interest in fossils. By far the most important work issued on 
 this subject was the “ Petrifacta Germanica ,” by Goldfuss, 
 in three folio volumes, 1826 to 1844, which has lost little of 
 its value. Bronn’s “ Geschichte der Natur ,” 1841-46, was a 
 work of great labor, and one of the most useful in the litera¬ 
 ture of this period. The author gave a list of all the known 
 fossil species, with full references, and also their distribution 
 through the various formations. This gave exact data on which 
 to base generalizations, hitherto of comparatively little value. 
 
 Among other early works of interest in this department may 
 be mentioned, Dalman’s memoir on Trilobites , 1828, and Bur- 
 meister’s on the same subject, 1843. Giebel’s well known 
 “Fauna der Vorwelt ,” 1847-1856, gave lists of all the fossils 
 described up to that time, and hence is a very useful work. 
 The “ Letheea Geognostica ” by Bronn, 1834-38, and the 
 second edition by Bronn and Boemer, 1846-56, is a compre¬ 
 hensive general treatise on Paleontology, and the most valuable 
 work of the kind yet published. 
 
 The researches of Ehrenberg, in regard to the lowest forms • 
 of animals and plants, threw much light on various points in 
 
33 
 
 *) 
 
 Palaeontology, and showed the origin of extensive deposits, 
 the nature of which had before been in doubt. Yon Buch, 
 Barrande, Beyrich, Berendt, Dunker, Geinitz, Heer, Hornes, 
 Klipstein, Yon Munster, Beuss, Roemer, Sandberger, Suess, 
 Yon Hagenow, Yon Hauer, Zeiten, and many others, all aided 
 in the advancement of this branch of science. Angelin, His- 
 inger, and Nilsson, in Scandinavia; Abich, DeWaldheim, Eich- 
 wald, Keyserling, Kutorga, Nordmann, Pander, Rouillier, and 
 Yolborth, in Russia*; and Pusch in Poland, published important 
 results on fossil invertebrates. 
 
 The impetus given by Cuvier to the study of vertebrate fossils 
 extended over Europe, and great efforts were made to continue 
 discoveries in the direction he had so admirably pointed out. 
 
 Louis Agassiz (1807-73), a pupil of Cuvier, and long an 
 honored member of this association, attained eminence in the 
 study of ancient as well as of recent life. His great work on 
 Fossil Fishes* deserves to rank next to Cuvier’s “Ossemens 
 FossilesP The latter contained mainly fossil mammals and 
 reptiles, while the fishes were left without a historian till 
 Agassiz began his investigations. His studies had admirably 
 fitted him for the task, and his industry brought together a 
 vast array of facts bearing on the subject. The value of this 
 grand work consists not only in its faithful descriptions and 
 plates, but also in the more profound results it contained. 
 Agassiz first showed that there is a correspondence between 
 the succession of fishes in the rocks, and their embryonal 
 development. This is now thought to be one of the strongest 
 points in favor of evolution, although its discoverer interpreted 
 the facts as bearing the other way. 
 
 Pander’s memoirs on the fossil fishes of Russia form a 
 worthy supplement to Agassiz’s classic work. Brandt’s publi¬ 
 cations are likewise of great value; and those of Lund, in 
 Sweden, have an especial interest to Americans, in consequence 
 of his researches in the caves of Brazil. 
 
 * Recherches sur les Poissons fossiles, 1833-45. 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 Croizet and Jobert’s u Pecker ches sur les ossemens fossiles 
 du department du Puy-de-Dome” published in 1828, contained 
 valuable results in regard to fossil mammals. Geoffroy St. 
 Hilaire’s researches on fossil Reptiles, published in 1831, were 
 an important advance. He Serres and He Christol’s explora¬ 
 tions in the caverns in the South of France, published between 
 1829 and 1839, were of much value. Schmerling’s researches in 
 the caverns of Belgium, published in 1833-36, were especially 
 important on account of the discovery of human remains min¬ 
 gled with those of extinct animals. Heslongchamp’s memoirs 
 on fossil reptiles, 1835, are still of great interest. Pictet’s 
 general treatise on palaeontology was a valuable addition to 
 the literature, and has done much to encourage the study of 
 fossils,* HeBlainville, in his grand work, “ Osteographies 
 issued in 1839-56, brought together the remains of living and 
 extinct vertebrates, forming a series of the greatest value for 
 study. Aymard and Pomel’s contributions to vertebrate Palae¬ 
 ontology are both of value. Gervais and Lartet added much 
 to our knowledge of the subject, and Bravard and Hebert’s 
 memoirs are well known. 
 
 The brilliant discoveries of Cuvier in the Paris Basin, 
 excited great interest in England, and when it was found that 
 the same Tertiary strata existed in the south of England, care¬ 
 ful search was made for vertebrate fossils. Remains of some 
 of the same genera described by Cuvier were soon discovered, 
 and other extinct animals new to science were found in 
 various parts of the kingdom. Konig, to whom we owe the 
 name Ichthyosa%irus , and Conybeare, who gave the generic 
 designation Plesiosaurus , and also Mosasaurus , were among 
 the earliest writers in England on fossil reptiles. The discov¬ 
 ery of these three extinct types, and the discussion as to their 
 nature, forms a most interesting chapter in the annals of 
 Palseontology. The discovery of the Iguanodon , by Mantell, 
 and the Megalosaurus , by Buckland, excited still higher 
 
 * li Traite elementaire de paleontologies etc*., Geneve. 4 vols. 1844 -46. Second 
 Edition. Paris, 1853-55. 
 
35 
 
 interest. These great reptiles differed much more widely from 
 living forms than the mammals described by Cuvier, and the 
 period in which they lived soon became known as the “ age of 
 Reptiles.” The subsequent researches of these authors added 
 largely to the existing knowledge of various extinct forms, 
 and their writings did much to arouse public interest in the 
 subject. 
 
 Richard Owen, a pupil of Cuvier, followed, and brought to 
 bear upon the subject an extensive knowledge of comparative 
 anatomy, and a wide acquaintance with existing forms. His 
 contributions have enriched almost every department of palae¬ 
 ontology, and of extinct vertebrates especially, he has been, 
 since Cuvier, the chief historian. The fossil reptiles of 
 England, he has systematically described, as well as those of 
 South Africa, The extinct Strutliious birds of Hew Zealand, 
 he has made known to science, and accurately described in 
 extended memoirs. His researches on the fossil mammals of 
 Great Britain, the extinct Edentates of South America, and 
 the ancient Marsupials of Australia, each forms an important 
 chapter in the history of our science. 
 
 The personal researches of Falconer and Cautley in the 
 Sewalik Hills of India brought to light a marvelous vertebrate 
 fauna of Pliocene age. The remains thus secured were made 
 known in their great work, “Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis ,” 
 published at London in 1845. The important contributions of 
 Egerton to our knowledge of fossil fishes, and Jardine’s well 
 known work, “Ichnology of Annandale,” also belong to this 
 period. 
 
 The study of vertebrate fossils in Germany was pros¬ 
 ecuted with much success during the present period. Blumen- 
 bach, the ethnologist, in several publications between 1803 
 and 1814, recorded valuable observations on this subject. 
 In 1812, Sommerring gave an excellent figure of a pterodac¬ 
 tyl e, which he named and described. Goldfuss’ researches on 
 the fossil vertebrates from the Caves of Germany, published 
 in 1820-23, made known the more important facts of that 
 
36 
 
 interesting fauna. His later publications on extinct Amphibians 
 and Reptiles were also noteworthy. Jager’s investigations on 
 the extinct vertebrate fauna of Wurtemberg, published between 
 1824 and 1839, were an important advance. To Plieninger’s 
 researches in the same region, 1834-44, we owe the discovery 
 of the first Triassic mammal (. Microlestes ), as well as important 
 information in regard to Labyrinthodonts. Kaup’s researches 
 on fossil mammals, 1832-41, brought to light many interesting 
 forms, and to him we are indebted for the generic name 
 Dinotherium , and excellent descriptions of the remains then 
 known. 
 
 Count Munster’s “ Beitrage zur Petrifacten-Kunde ,” pub¬ 
 lished 1843-46, contained several valuable papers on fossil 
 vertebrates; and the separate papers by the same author are of 
 interest. Andreas Wagner wrote on Pterosaurians in 1837, 
 and later gave the first description of fossil mammals of the 
 Tertiary of Greece, 1837-40. Johannes Muller published an 
 important illustrated work on the Zeuglodonts, in 1849, and 
 various notable memoirs; and Quenstedt, interesting descrip¬ 
 tions of fossil reptiles, as well as other papers of much value. 
 Putimeyer’s suggestive memoirs are widely known. 
 
 Hermann von Meyer’s contributions to vertebrate palaeon¬ 
 tology are by far the most important published in Germany 
 during the period we are now considering. From 1830, his 
 investigations on this subject were continuous for nearly forty 
 years, and his various publications are all of value. His 
 u Beitrage zur Petrifactenkunde ,” 1831-33, contains a series of 
 valuable memoirs. His “ Palceologica” issued in 1832, includes 
 a synopsis of the fossil vertebrates then known, with much 
 original matter. His great work, “ Zur Fauna der Vorwelt ,” 
 1845-60, includes a series of monographs invaluable to the 
 student of vertebrate palaeontology. This work, as well as his 
 other chief publications, was illustrated with admirable plates 
 from his own drawings. Other memoirs by this author will be 
 found in the “ Paloeontograjpliica ,” of which he was one of the 
 editors. In the many volumes of this publication, which began 
 
37 
 
 in 1851, and is still continued, will be found much to interest 
 the investigator in any branch of palaeontology. 
 
 The “ Palseontographical Society of London,” established in 
 1847, has also issued a series of volumes containing valuable 
 memoirs in various branches of Palaeontology. These two 
 publications together are a storehouse of knowledge in regard 
 to extinct forms of animal and vegetable life. 
 
 It may be interesting here to note briefly the use of general 
 terms in Palaeontology, as the gradual progress of the science 
 was indicated to some extent in its terminology. At first, and 
 for a long time, the name “fossil” was appropriately used for 
 objects dug from the earth, both minerals and organic remains. 
 The term “ Oryctology,” having essentially the same meaning, 
 was also used for this branch of study. For a long period, too, 
 the termination ites a stone) was applied to fossils to 
 
 distinguish them from the corresponding living forms; as, for 
 instance, “ Ostraeites” used by Pliny. At a later date, the 
 general name “figured stones” (lapides figurati ) was exten¬ 
 sively used ; and less frequently, “ Deluge stones ” ( lajpides 
 diluviani). The term “ organized fossils ” was used to distin¬ 
 guish fossils from minerals, when the real difference became 
 known, although the name “Reliquiae” was sometimes em¬ 
 ployed. The term “petrifactions” (. Petrificata ) was defined 
 by John Gesner in his work on fossils in 1758, and was 
 afterwards extensively used. Palaeontology is comparatively a 
 modern term, having come into use only within the last half 
 century. It was introduced about 1830, and soon was generally 
 adopted in France and England; but in Germany it met with 
 less favor, though used to some extent. 
 
 It would be interesting, too, did time permit, to trace the 
 various opinions and superstitions, held at different times, in 
 regard to some of the more common fossils, for example, the 
 Ammonite, or the Belemnite. Of their supposed celestial 
 origin; of their use as medicine by the ancients, and in the 
 
38 
 
 East to-day; of tlieir marvellous power as charms, among the 
 Romans, and still among the American Indians. It would he 
 instructive, also, to compare the various views expressed by stu¬ 
 dents in science, concerning some of the stranger extinct forms, 
 for instance, the Nummulites, among Protozoa; the Rudistes, 
 among Mollusks; or the Mosasaurus, among Reptiles. Dissim¬ 
 ilar as such views were, they indicate in many cases gropings 
 after truth,—natural steps in the increase of knowledge. 
 
 The third period in the history of Palaeontology, which, as I 
 have said, began with Cuvier and Lamarck at the beginning of 
 the present century, forms a natural epoch extending through 
 six decades. The definite characteristics of this period, as stated, 
 were dominant during all this time, and the progress of Palaeon¬ 
 tology was commensurate with that of intelligence and culture. 
 
 For the first half of this period, the marvelous discoveries in 
 the Paris Basin excited astonishment, and absorbed attention; 
 but the real significance and value of the facts made known by 
 Cuvier, Lamarck, and William Smith, were not appreciated. 
 There was still a strong tendency to regard fossils merely as 
 interesting objects of natural history, as in the previous period, 
 and not as the key to profounder problems in the earth’s his¬ 
 tory. Many prominent geologists were still endeavoring to 
 identify formations in different countries by their mineral 
 characters, rather than by the fossils imbedded in them. Such 
 names as “Old Red Sandstone,” and “Hew Red Sandstone, 
 were given in accordance with this opinion. Humboldt, for 
 example, attempted to compare the formations of South Amer¬ 
 ica and Europe by their mineral features, and doubted the 
 value of fossils for this purpose. In 1823, he wrote as follows: 
 “ Are we justified in concluding that all formations are char¬ 
 acterized by particular species ? that the fossil shells of the 
 chalk, the muschelkalk, the Jura limestone, and the Alpine 
 limestones, are all different ? I think this would be pushing 
 the induction much too far.”* Jameson still thought minerals 
 * Essai geognostique sur legisement des Roches, p. 41. 
 
39 
 
 more important than fossils for characterizing formations; 
 while Bakewell, later yet, defines Palaeontology as comprising 
 u Fossil Zoology and Fossil Botany, a knowledge of which may 
 appear to the student as having little connection with Geology.” 
 
 During the later half of the third period, greater progress 
 was made, and before its close Geology was thoroughly estab¬ 
 lished as a science. Let us consider for a moment what had 
 really been accomplished up to this time. 
 
 It had now been proved beyond question that portions at 
 least of the Earth’s surface had been covered many times by 
 the sea, with alternations of fresh water and of land ; that the 
 strata thus deposited were formed in succession, the lowest 
 of the series being the oldest; that a distinct succession of 
 animals and plants had inhabited the earth during the different 
 geological periods; and that the order of succession found in 
 one part of the earth was essentially the same in all. More 
 than 30,000 new species of extinct animals and plants had now 
 been described. It had been found, too, that from the oldest 
 formations to the most recent, there had been an advance in 
 the grade of life, both animal and vegetable, the oldest forms 
 being -among the simplest, and the higher forms successively 
 making their appearance. 
 
 It had now become clearly evident, moreover, that the fossils 
 from the older formations were all extinct species, and that only 
 in the most recent deposits were there remains of forms still 
 living. The equally important fact had been established, that 
 in several groups of both animals and plants, the extinct forms 
 were vastly more numerous than the living; while several orders 
 of fossil animals had no representatives in modern times. 
 Human remains had been found mingled with those of extinct, 
 animals, but the association was regarded as an accidental one 
 by the authorities in science; and the very recent appearance 
 of Man on the earth was not seriously questioned. Another 
 important conclusion reached, mainly through the labors of 
 Lyell, was, that the earth had not been subjected in the past to 
 sudden and violent revolutions; but the great changes wrought 
 
40 
 
 liad been gradual, differing in no essential respect from those 
 still in progress. Strangely enough, the corollary to this propo¬ 
 sition, that Life, too, had been continuous on the earth, formed 
 at that date no part of the common stock of knowledge. 
 
 In the physical world, the great law of “ Correlation of 
 forces ” had been announced, and widely accepted ; but in the 
 organic world, the dogma of the miraculous creation of each 
 separate species still held sway, almost as completely as when 
 Linnaeus declared: “ There are as many different species as 
 there were different forms created in the beginning by the 
 Infinite Being.” But the dawn of a new era was already 
 breaking, and the third period of palaeontology we may 
 consider now at an end. 
 
 Just twenty years ago, science had reached a point when the 
 belief in “special creations” was undermined by well estab¬ 
 lished facts, slowly accumulated. The time was ripe. Many 
 naturalists were working at the problem, convinced that Evo¬ 
 lution was the key to the present and the past. But how had 
 Nature brought this change about ? While others pondered, 
 Darwin spoke the magic word — “ Natural Selection ,” and a 
 new epoch in science began. 
 
 The fourth period in the history of Palaeontology dates from 
 this time, and is the period of to-day. One of the main char¬ 
 acteristics of this epoch is the belief that all life , living and 
 extinct , has been evolved from simple forms . Another prom¬ 
 inent feature is the accepted fact of the great antiquity of the 
 human race. These are quite sufficient to distinguish this 
 period sharply from those that preceded it. 
 
 The publication of Charles Darwin’s work on the u Origin 
 of Species,” November, 1859, at once aroused attention, and 
 started a revolution which has already in the short space of 
 two decades changed the whole course of scientific thought. 
 The theory of “Natural Selection,” or as Spencer has hap¬ 
 pily termed it, the “ Survival of the Fittest,” had been worked 
 out independently by Wallace, who justly shares the honor of 
 
41 
 
 
 tlie discovery. We have seen that the theory of Evolution was 
 proposed and advocated by Lamarck, but he was before his 
 time. The anonymous author of the “ Vestiges of Creation,” 
 which appeared in 1844, advocated a somewhat similar theory 
 which attracted much attention, but the belief that species were 
 immutable was not sensibly affected until Darwin’s work 
 appeared. 
 
 The difference between Lamarck and Darwin is essentially 
 this : Lamarck proposed the theory of Evolution ; Darwin 
 changed this into a doctrine, which is now guiding the investi¬ 
 gations in all departments of biology. Lamarck failed to real¬ 
 ize the importance of time, and the interaction of life on 
 life. Darwin, by combining these influences with those also 
 suggested by Lamarck, has shown how the existing forms on 
 the earth may have been derived from those of the past. 
 
 This revolution has influenced Palaeontology as extensively 
 as any other department of science, and hence the new period 
 we are discussing. In the last epoch, species were repre¬ 
 sented independently, by parallel lines; in the present period, 
 they are indicated by dependent, branching lines. The former 
 was the analytic, the latter is the synthetic, period. To-day, the 
 animals and plants now living are believed to be genetically 
 connected with those of the distant past; and the palaeontologist 
 no longer deems species of the first importance, but seeks for 
 relationships and genealogies, connecting the past with the 
 present. Working in this spirit, and with such a method, the 
 advance during the last decade has been great, and is an earnest 
 of what is yet to come. 
 
 The progress of Palaeontology in Great Britain during the 
 present period has been great, and the general interest in the 
 science much extended. The views of Darwin soon found 
 acceptance here. Next to his discovery of “Natural Selection,” 
 Darwin was fortunate in having so able and bold an expounder 
 as Huxley; who was one of the first to adopt his theory, and 
 give it a vigorous support. Huxley’s masterly researches have 
 6 
 
42 
 
 been of great benefit to all departments of Biology, and bis 
 contributions to Palaeontology are invaluable. Among the 
 latter, his original investigations on the relations of Birds and 
 Beptiles are especially noteworthy. His various memoirs on 
 extinct Beptiles, Amphibians and Fishes, belong to the perma¬ 
 nent literature of the subject. The important researches of Owen 
 on the fossil vertebrates have been continued to the present 
 time. He has added largely to his previous publications on 
 the British fossil Beptiles, Birds, and Mammals; the extinct 
 reptiles of South Africa, and the Post-Tertiary birds of Hew 
 Zealand. His description of the Archaeopteryx near the begin¬ 
 ning of the period was a most ’welcome contribution. 
 
 The investigations of Egerton on Fossil Fishes have likewise 
 been continued with important results. Busk, Dawkins, Flower 
 and Sanford have made valuable contributions to the history of 
 fossil Mammals. Bell, Gunther, Hulke, Lankester, Powrie, 
 Miall, and Seely, have made notable additions to our knowledge 
 of Beptiles, Amphibians, and Fishes. Among Invertebrates, the 
 Crustacea have been especially studied by Jones, Salter, and 
 Woodward. Davidson, Etheridge, Lycett, Morris, Phillips, 
 Wood, and Wright have continued their researches on the 
 Mollusks; Duncan, Hicholson and others have investigated the 
 extinct Corals; and Binney, Carruthers, and Williamson, the 
 Fossil Plants. Mumerous other important contributions have 
 been made to the science in Great Britain during the present 
 period. 
 
 On the Continent, the advance in Palaeontology has, during 
 the last two decades, been equally great. In France, Gervais 
 continued his memoirs on extinct vertebrates nearly to the 
 present date; while Gaudry has published several volumes on 
 the subject that are models for all students of the science. His 
 work on the fossil animals of Greece is a perfect monograph 
 of its kind, and his later publications are all of importance. 
 Lartet’s various works are of permanent value, and his applica¬ 
 tion of Palaeontology to Archaeology brought notable results. 
 The volume of Alphonse Milne-Edwards on fossil Crustacea 
 
43 
 
 was a fit supplement to Brongniart and Desmarest’s well known 
 work ; wliile his grand memoir on fossil Birds deserves to 
 rank with the classic volumes of Cuvier. Duvernoy, Filhol, 
 Hebert, Sauvage and others have also published interesting 
 results on fossil vertebrates. 
 
 Van Beneden’s researches on the fossil vertebrates of Bel¬ 
 gium have produced results of great value. Pictet, Riitimeyer, 
 and Wedersheim in Switzerland, Bianconi, Forsytli-Major, and 
 Sismonda in Italy, and Nodot in Spain, have likewise published 
 important memoirs. The extinct vertebrates have been studied 
 in Germany by Von Meyer, Carus, Fraas, Giebel, Haeckel, 
 Haase, Ilensel, Kayser, Kner, Ludwig, Peters, Portis, Maack, 
 Salenka, Zittel, and many others; in Holland by Winkler, in 
 Denmark by Reinhardt; and in Russia by Brandt and 
 Kowalewsky. 
 
 The fossil invertebrates have been investigated with care by 
 D’Archiac, D’Orbigny, Bayle, Fromentel, Oustalet, and others 
 in France; Desor, Loriol and Roux in Switzerland; Cappellini, 
 Massalongo, Michellotti, Meneghini, and Sismonda in Italy, 
 Barrande, Benecke, Beyrich, Dames, Dorn, Ehlers, Geinitz, 
 Giebel, Giimbel, Feistmantel, Hagen, von Hauer, von Heyden, 
 von Fritsch, Laube, Oppel, Quenstedt, Roemer, Schliiter, Suess, 
 Speyer, and Zittel in Germany. The fossil Plants have been 
 studied in these countries by Massalongo, Saporta, Zigno, 
 Fiedler, Goldenberg, Gehler, Heer, Goeppert, Ludwig, Schim- 
 per, Schenk, and many others. 
 
 Among the recent researches in Palaeontology in other 
 regions may be mentioned those of Blanford, Feistmantel, 
 Lydekker, and Stoliczka, in India; Haast and Hector in New 
 Zealand, and Krefft and McCoy in Australia; all of whom 
 have published valuable results. 
 
 Of the progress of palaeontology in America, I have thus far 
 said nothing, and I need now say but little, as many of you are 
 doubtless familiar with its main features. During the first 
 and second periods in the history of palaeontology, as I have 
 
44 
 
 defined them, America, for most excellent reasons, took no 
 part. In tlie present century, during the tliird period, appear 
 the names of Bigsby, Green, Morton, Mitchell, Rafinesque, 
 Say, and Troost, all of whom deserve mention. More recently, 
 the researches of Conrad, Dana, Deane, DeKay, Emmons, 
 Gibbes, Hitchcock, Holmes, Lea, McChesney, Owen, Redfield, 
 Rogers, Shumard, Swallow, and many others, have enlarged 
 our knowledge of the fossils of this country. 
 
 The contributions of James Hall to the Invertebrate Palaeon¬ 
 tology of this country form the basis of our present knowledge 
 of the subject. The extensive labors of Meek in the same 
 department are likewise entitled to great credit, and will form 
 an important chapter in the history of the science. The 
 memoirs of Billings, Gabb, Scudder, White, and Whitfield are 
 numerous and important ; and the publications of Derby, 
 Hartt, James, Miller, Shaler, Rathburn, and Winchell, are also 
 of value. To Dawson, Lesquereux, and Hewberry, we mainly 
 owe our present knowledge of the fossil plants of this country. 
 
 The foundation of our vertebrate Palaeontology was laid by 
 Leidy, whose contributions have enriched nearly every depart¬ 
 ment of the subject. The numerous publications of Cope are 
 well known. Agassiz, Allen, Baird, Dawson, Deane, DeKay, 
 Emmons, Gibbes, Harlan, Hitchcock, Jefferson, Lea, LeConte, 
 He wherry, Redfield, St. John, Warren, • Whitney, Worthen, 
 Wyman, and others, have all added to our knowledge of 
 American fossil vertebrates. The chief results in this depart¬ 
 ment of our subject, I have already laid before you on a 
 previous occasion, and hence need not dwell upon them here. 
 
 In this rapid sketch of the history of Palaeontology, I have 
 thought it best to speak of the earlier periods more in detail, as 
 they are less generally known, and especially as they indicate 
 the growth of the science, and the obstacles it had to surmount. 
 With the present work in palaeontology, moreover, you are all 
 more or less familiar, as the results are now part of the current 
 literature. To assign every important discovery to its author, 
 
45 
 
 would have led me far beyond my present plan. I have only 
 endeavored to indicate the growth of the science by citing the 
 more prominent works that mark its progress, or illustrate the 
 prevailing opinions and state of knowledge at the time they 
 were written. 
 
 In considering what has been accomplished, directly or indi¬ 
 rectly, it is well to bear in mind that without palaeontology 
 there would have been no science of geology. The latter- 
 science originated from the study of fossils, and not the reverse, 
 as generally supposed. Palaeontology, therefore, is not a mere 
 branch of geology, but the foundation on which that science 
 mainly rests. This fact is a sufficient excuse, if one were want¬ 
 ing, for noting the early opinions in regard to the changes of 
 the earth’s surface, as these changes were first studied to explain 
 the position of fossils. The investigation of the latter first led 
 to theories of the earth’s formation, and thus to geology. When 
 speculation replaced observation, fossils were discarded, and 
 for a time the mineral characters of strata were thought to be 
 the key to their position and age. For some time after this, 
 geologists, as we have seen, apologized for using fossils to deter¬ 
 mine formations, but for the last half century their value for 
 this purpose has been fully recognized. 
 
 The services which Palaeontology has rendered to Botany 
 and Zoology are less easy to estimate, but are very extensive. 
 The classification of these sciences has been rendered much 
 more complete by the intercalation of many intermediate 
 forms. The probable origin of various living species has been 
 indicated by the genealogies suggested by extinct types; while 
 our knowledge of the geographical distribution of animals and 
 plants at the present day has been greatly improved by the 
 facts brought out in regard to the former distribution of life 
 on the globe. 
 
 Among the vast number of new species which have been added 
 are the representatives of a number of new orders entirely un¬ 
 known among living forms. The distribution of these extinct 
 orders, among the different classes, is interesting, as they 
 
46 
 
 are mainly confined to the higher groups. Among the fossil 
 Plants, no new orders have yet been found. There are none 
 known among the Protozoa, or the Mollusca. The Padiates 
 have been enriched by the extinct orders of Blastoidea, Cystidea, 
 and Edrioasterida; and the Crustaceans by the Eurypterida and 
 Trilobita. Among the Vertebrates, no extinct order of fossil 
 Fishes has yet been found; but the Amphibians have been 
 enlarged by the important order Labyrinthodonta. The great¬ 
 est additions have been among the Peptiles, where the majority 
 of the orders are extinct. Here we have at the present date 
 the Iehthyosauria, Sauranodontia, Plesiosauria and Mosasauria, 
 among the marine forms; the Pterosauria, including the 
 Pteranodontia, containing the flying forms ; and the Dinosauria, 
 including the Sauropoda—the giants among reptiles; likewise 
 the Dicynodontia, and probably the Theriodontia, among the 
 terrestrial forms. Although but few fossil Birds have been 
 found below the Tertiary, we have already among the Mesozoic 
 forms three new orders: the Saururse, represented by Archce- 
 opteryx / the Odontotormse, with Ichthyornis as the type; and 
 the Odontolcse, based upon Ilesperornis / all of these orders 
 being included in the sub-class Odontornithes, or toothed birds. 
 Among Mammals, the new groups regarded as orders are the 
 Toxodontia, and the Dinocerata, among the Ungulates; and 
 the Tillodontia, including strange Eocene Mammals whose 
 exact affinities are yet to be determined. 
 
 Among the important results in vertebrate palaeontology, are 
 the genealogies, made out with considerable probability, for 
 various existing animals. Many of the larger mammals have 
 been traced back through allied forms in a closely connected 
 series to early Tertiary times. In several cases the series are 
 so complete that there can be little doubt that the line of 
 descent has been established. The Evolution of the horse, for 
 example, is to-day demonstrated by the specimens now known. 
 The demonstration in one case stands for all. The evidence in 
 favor of the genealogy of the horse now rests on the same 
 
47 
 
 foundation as the proof that any fossil bone once formed part 
 of the skeleton of a living animal. A special creation of a 
 single bone is as probable as the special creation of a single 
 species. The method of the palaeontologist in the investigation 
 of the one, is the method for the other. The only choice lies 
 between natural derivation and supernatural creation. 
 
 For such reasons it is now regarded among the active 
 workers in science as a waste of time to discuss the truth of 
 Evolution. The battle on this point has been fought, and won. 
 
 The geographical distribution of animals and plants, as well 
 as their migrations, has received much new light from Palae¬ 
 ontology. The fossils found in some natural divisions of the 
 earth are related so closely to the forms now living there, that 
 a genetic connection between them can hardly be doubted. 
 The extinct Marsupials of Australia, and the Edentates of 
 South America, are well known examples. The Pliocene hip¬ 
 popotami of Asia and the South of Europe point directly to 
 migrations from Africa. Other similar examples are numerous. 
 The fossil plants of the Arctic region prove the existence of a 
 climate there far milder than at present, and recent researches 
 at least render more probable the suggestion, made long ago by 
 Buffon, in his “ Epochs of Nature,” that life began in the polar 
 regions, and by successive migrations from them the conti¬ 
 nents were peopled. 
 
 The great services which Comparative Anatomy rendered to 
 Palaeontology at the hands of Cuvier,’ Agassiz, Owen, and 
 others, have been amply repaid. The solution of some of the 
 most difficult problems in Anatomy has received scarcely less 
 aid from the extinct forms discovered, than from Embryology; 
 and the two lines of research supplement each other. Our 
 present knowledge of the vertebrate skull, the limb-arches, and 
 the limbs, has been much enlarged by researches in Palaeontol¬ 
 ogy. On the other hand, the recent labors of Gegenbaur, 
 Huxley, Parker, Balfour, and Thacker, will make clear many 
 obscure points in ancient Life. 
 
48 
 
 One of the important results of recent palaeontological 
 research, is the law of brain-growth, found to exist among 
 extinct mammals, and to some extent in other vertebrates. 
 According to this law, as I have briefly stated it elsewhere: 
 “ All Tertiary mammals had small brains. There was, also, a 
 gradual increase in the size of the brain during this period. 
 This increase was confined mainly to the cerebral hemispheres, 
 or higher portions of the brain. In some groups, the convolu¬ 
 tions of the brain have gradually become more complicated. 
 In some, the cerebellum and the olfactory lobes have even 
 diminished in size.” More recent researches render it probable 
 that the same general law of brain-growth holds good for birds 
 and reptiles from the Mesozoic to the present time. The Cre¬ 
 taceous birds, that have been investigated with reference to this 
 point, had brains only about one-tliird as large in proportion as 
 those nearest allied among living species. The Dinosaurs from 
 our Western Jurassic follow the same law, and had brain cav¬ 
 ities vastly smaller than any existing reptiles. Many other 
 facts point in the same direction, and indicate that the general 
 law will hold good for all extinct vertebrates. 
 
 Palaeontology has rendered great service to the more recent 
 science of Archaeology. At the beginning of the present period, 
 a re-examination of the evidence in regard to the antiquity of 
 the human race was going on, and important results were soon 
 attained. Evidence in favor of the presence of man on the 
 earth at a period far earlier than the accepted chronology of six 
 thousand years would imply, had been gradually accumulating; 
 but had been rejected from time to time by the highest authori¬ 
 ties. In 1823, Cuvier, Brongniart, and Buckland, and later, 
 Lyell, refused to admit that human relics, and the bones of 
 extinct animals found with them, were of the same geological 
 age, although experienced geologists, such as Bone and others, 
 had been convinced by collecting them. Christol, Serres, and 
 Tournal, in France, and Schmerling in Belgium, had found 
 human remains in caves, associated closely with those of various 
 extinct mammals, and other similar facts were on record. 
 
49 
 
 Boucher de Perthes, in 1841, began to collect stone imple¬ 
 ments in the gravels of the valley of the Somme, and, in 1847, 
 published the first volume of his “Antiquites Celtiques .” In 
 this work, he described the specimens he had found, and asserted 
 their great antiquity. The facts as presented, however, were 
 not generally accepted. Twelve years later, Falconer, Evans, 
 and Prestwich examined the same localities with care, became 
 convinced, and the results were published in 1859 and 1860. 
 About the same time Gaudry, Hebert, and Desnoyers, also ex¬ 
 plored the same valley, and announced that the stone imple¬ 
 ments there wfcre as ancient as the mammoth and rhinoceros 
 found with them. Explorations in the Swiss lakes and in the 
 Danish shell heaps added new testimony hearing in the same 
 direction. In 1863, appeared Lyell’s work on the “ Geo¬ 
 logical Evidences of the Antiquity of Man,” in which facts 
 were brought together from various parts of the world, proving 
 beyond question the great age of the human race. 
 
 The additional proof since brought to light has been exten¬ 
 sive, and is still rapidly increasing. The Quaternary age of 
 man is now generally accepted. Attempts have recently been 
 made to approximate in years the time of man’s first ajDpear- 
 ance on the earth. One high authority has estimated the 
 antiquity of man merely to the last glacial epoch of Europe as 
 250,000 years; and those best qualified to judge, would, I 
 think, regard this as a fair estimate. 
 
 Important evidence has likewise been adduced of man’s 
 existence in the Tertiary, both in Europe and America. The 
 evidence to-day is in favor of the presence of man in the 
 Pliocene of this country. The proof offered on this point by 
 Professor J.. D. Whitney, in his recent work,* is so strong, 
 and his careful, conscientious method of investigation so well 
 known, that his conclusions seem irresistible. Whether the 
 Pliocene strata he has explored so fully on the Pacific coast 
 corresponds strictly with the deposits which bear this name in 
 Europe, may be a question requiring further consideration. 
 
 * Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California. 18t9. 
 
 1 
 
50 
 
 At present, tlie known facts indicate that the American beds 
 containing human remains, and works of man, are as old as the 
 Pliocene of Europe. The existence of Man in the Tertiary 
 period seems now fairly established. 
 
 In looking back over the history of Palaeontology, much 
 seems to have been accomplished; and yet the work has hut 
 just begun. A small fraction only of the earth’s surface has 
 been examined, and two large continents are waiting to be 
 explored. The “ imperfection of the geological record,” so 
 often cited by friends and foes, still remains, although much 
 improved; but the future is full of promise. In filling out 
 this record, America, I believe, will do her full share, and 
 thus aid in the solution of the great problems now before us. 
 
 I have endeavored to define clearly the different periods 
 in the history of Palaeontology. If I may venture, in conclu¬ 
 sion, to characterize the present period in all departments of 
 science, its main feature would be a belief in universal laws. 
 The reign of Law, first recognized in the physical world, has 
 now been extended to Life, as well. In return, Life has given 
 to inanimate nature the key to her profounder mysteries— 
 Evolution, which embraces the universe. 
 
 What is to be the main characteristic of the next period 1 
 ~No one now can tell. But if we are permitted to continue in 
 imagination the rapidly converging lines of research pursued 
 to-day, they seem to meet at the point where organic and 
 inorganic nature become one. That this point will yet be 
 reached, I cannot doubt. 
 
 i 
 
Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor, Printers, New Haven, Conn.