318
on this head. Of which number, also, are those authorshriefly mentioned, as follows: Nic. Steno , in a dissertationDe Solido intra Solidum Contento, published in 1639, atFlorence, displays a considerable degree of sound judg-ment in his inquiries respecting fossil remains. The Mu-seum MetalUcum of the indefatigable and illustrious Aldro-vandus, published in 1648, contains descriptions anddelineations of many fossil bodies. The w 7 ork of AugustinoScilla , De Corporibus Marinis Lapulis centibus, publishedat Naples, 1670,'also contains considerable information,the result of most careful and anxious inquiry. About thesame period, several learned men undertook to publish theOryctological History of several parts of Germany, Italy ,&c. Caspar Schwenkfeld , who, in 1600, published a cata-logue of fossils discovered in Siberia : but the most intelli-gent writer of this period was Francis Columna, who, in1616, published his treatise De Glossopertis. Those ofIlildesham. by Frid. Lachmund, and of Switzerland , by Jo.J. Wagner. About the same time, a dissertation by J.lion. Greyer, at Frankfort, De Mantibus Conckiforis etGlossopertis Alzeyenstbns. And at Leipzic, a dissertationby Albertus, De Figuris variorum Rerum in Lapidibus etSpecialiui Fossilibus Comitatis Mvffeldia. Nor were thefossils of this country neglected; the Lithophylacti Britan-nici Ichnographia of Lhwyd, published at Oxford , in 1669,contained a very ample catalogue of English fossils containedin the Ashmolean Museum . In 1664, was published byThomas Lawrence Mercariulis Centralis, or an Account ofSubterraneal Cockle and other Shells in Norfolk . SeveralEnglish fossils are described in Dr. Plott’s Natural Historyof Oxfordshire, published in 1686; in the Natural Historyof Northamptonshire, by Dr. Morton; and in Dr. Leigh’sNatural History of Cheshire, Lancashire , and the Peak ofDerbyshire, &c. &c. But particular notice is invited toDr. Woodward’s Natural History of English Fossils, whosupported the preseut general opinion concerning their pro-duction, L e. “ that they consisted of marine shells, &c.originally, which, by the petrifying power of certain waters,were changed into either metallic or stony bodies;” but an ex-ception appears to be made to the Doctor’s theory, inasmuchas he thought the waters of the deluge which had immersedthese substances, possessed the peculiar property to dissolverocks and admit those productions into their interior. Mr.Parkinson very ingeniously confutes this opinion, by ob-serving, that if the water was so great a solvent, the sub-stances themselves must have been also dissolved. Merret s