PROOFS

OF THE

THEORY OF THE EARTH

 

ARTICLE VIII

 

Of Shells, and other productions of the Sea, found in the Interior Parts of the Earth.

 

            I HAVE often examined quarries, the stones of which were full of shells, and chains of rocks intermixed with shells through their whole extent.  The quantity of shells, and other productions of the sea, is, in many places, so prodigious, that one could with difficulty believe that any more of them existed in their natural element.  It is from this enormous quantity that no doubt remains of the earth’s having continued for a very long time under the waters of the sea.  The number of sea-shells found in a fossil or petrified state is so amazing, that, were it not for [188] this circumstance, we never should have had a proper idea of the surprising quantities of those animals to which the ocean gives birth.  We must not, therefore, imagine, like those who talk and reason concerning things they never saw, that shells are only to be found scattered here and there by chance, or in small heaps, like those of oisters [sic] thrown from our doors.  They appear, on the contrary, in masses like mountains, in banks of 100 or 200 leagues in length; they may often be traced through whole provinces, and in masses of 50 or 60 feet thick.  It is only after having learned these facts that a man is entitled to reason on this subject.

 

            The shells of Turenne may serve as a striking example.  Let us attend to the description given of them by the historian of the Academy.*

 

            “Though figured stones, and even fossil shells found in the bowels of the earth, were remarked in all ages and nations, they were generally considered, even by philosophers themselves, as lusus naturae, their production was ascribed to chance, or some unaccountable and fortuitous train of circumstances; and, of course, this wonderful phaenomenon added nothing to the stock of knowledge.  An ignorant potter in Paris, who knew neither Greek nor Latin, towards the end of the 16th century, was the first man+ who ventured, in opposition to all the [189] learned, to affirm, that fossil shells were real shells originally deposited, by the sea; in those places where they were found; that real animals, and particularly fishes, bestowed on figured stones their various forms, &c.; and he boldly defied the whole school of Aristotle to invalidate his proofs.  His name was Bernard Palissy; and he was perhaps the most conspicuous example of a philosophical genius, unimproved by art or learning.  His system, however, has lain dormant for near a century, and even his name has almost been forgot.  At last, several philosophers revived Palissy’s ideas; and science has derived great advantage from all the fossil shells and figured stones that have appeared in the earth:  They are now, perhaps, become too common, and the consequences drawn from them too incontestable.”

           

            “But Reaumur’s late observations on the sub-subject [sic] are astonishing.  He discovered a mass below ground of 130,680,000 cubic fathoms of shells, either whole or in fragments, without the least mixture of stone, earth, sand, or other foreign matter.  Before this remarkable instance, fossil shells never appeared in such enormous quantities, nor without being mixed [190] with other bodies.  This prodigious mass lies in Turenne, more than 36 leagues from the sea.  It is of great service to the peasants of that province; they use the shells for marle in fertilizing their lands, which would otherwise be perfectly barren.”

 

            “When the peasants dig out of the earth, to the depth of eight or nine feet, consists only of fragments of shells; but these fragments are easily recognised [sic] to be those of real shells; for they still retain their original channels or furrows, and have only lost their lustre and varnish, as most shells do, after having remained long under ground.  The smallest fragments are only dust; but we know them to be the dust of shells, because they consist of the very same matter with the larger fragments, and the entire shells, which are sometimes found.  The species both of the large fragments and of the entire shells, are easily distinguishable.  Some of these species belong to the coast of Poitou, and others of them to foreign shores.  This mass likewise furnishes corals, and other productions of the sea.  Falun is the name by which this matter is distinguished in that province; and it is found, wherever the ground is dug, through an extent of about nine leagues square.   The peasants never dig deeper than about 20 feet; because, says Reaumar, they imagine that the expence of labour would exceed the value of the commodity.  [191]  They might, however, dig deeper.  But our calculation of 130,680,000 cubic fathoms proceeds upon the supposition of only 18 feet deep, and 2200 fathoms to the league.  Every article, therefore, is undervalued, and this mass of shells must greatly exceed the above calculation; if the quantity be only doubled, this wonderful phaenomenon will be greatly augmented.”

 

            “In physical facts, there are little circumstances often overlooked by the bulk of mankind, which are, notwithstanding, of great consequence in illustrating the subject.  M. de Beaumus has remarked, that all the fragments of shells lie horizontally in the great mass; from which he concludes, that the fragments were not deposited at the same time with the entire shells which originally formed this mass; because, says he, the superior shells would, by their weight, have broken the inferior ones, and the fragments, in that case, would necessarily have been disposed in a thousand different directions.  The whole, therefore, whether entire or broken, must have been gradually transported thither by the sea, and, of course, their position must have been horizontal; and, though time alone was sufficient to break them down, and even to calcine them, it could not vary their original position.  Their transportation must have been gradual; for, it is impossible that such an immense number of shells could be suddenly crouded [sic] together, and yet [192] preserve a position uniformly horizontal; and their being assembled in one place, demonstrates this place to have once been the bottom of a gulf or bason [sic].”

 

            “Though there are many vestiges of the universal deluge recorded in scripture; yet the mass of shells at Turenne could not be an effect of this deluge.  Perhaps such an amazing mass is no where to be found, even in the bottom of the sea.  But, supposing the deluge to have forced such a quantity from the ocean, they would necessarily be carried off with violence and precipitation; and, consequently, could never have been deposited in the same position.  It behoved [sic] them to have been transported, slowly floating in the waves; and, of course, their accumulation would require much longer time than a year.”

 

            “Upon the whole, it is plain, that, either before or after the deluge, the earth, at least some parts of it, must have been in a very different situation from what it now appears; that the sea and land must have had a different arrangement; and, that there was formerly a great gulf in the middle of Turenne.  The changes recorded in history, or even in antient fable, are inconsiderable; but they give us some idea of what might be produced in a long series of ages.  M. de Reaumur conjectures, that Turenne was formerly a gulf of the sea, and that the shells were transported by a current.  But this is only [193] a mere conjecture, thrown out to supply the place of fact as yet imperfectly known.  Before any certain conclusion can be drawn, we must have geographical charts of all those places where shells are found below the surface of the earth.  To accomplish this, much time and numberless observations are requisite.  Science, however, may in time, perhaps, be carried thus far.”

 

            An attention to the following circumstances will lessen our surprise at this great collection of shells:  I.  Shell-fish multiply prodigiously, and come to maturity in a very short time.  The multitude of individuals in every species, is a demonstration of their amazing fertility.  In a single day, for example, a mass of oysters, of several fathoms in thickness, is often raised; the rocks to which they are attached, diminish considerably in a short time; and some banks are entirely exhausted.  The following year, however, furnishes an equal quantity, and not the smallest diminution appears.  It is even doubted, whether a natural bed of oysters was ever entirely exhausted.  2.  The substance of shells is analogous to that of stone; they are long preserved when immersed in soft matter; and they easily petrify when connected with matter naturally hard; these fossil shells, therefore, and other productions of the sea found on land, being the spoils of many ages, must necessarily have accumulated into large masses.  [194]

 

            We have already remarked the prodigious quantities of shells preserved in marble, lime-stone, chalk, marle, &c.; that they appear in masses like hills or mountains; and that they often compose more than one half of the bodies in which they are contained.  Sometimes they appear entire, and at other times in fragments, but large enough to enable us to distinguish their respective species.  Here our knowledge of this subject, derived from observation, stops.  But I go farther, and maintain, that shells are the medium employed by nature in the formation of most stones; that chalk, marle, and lime-stone, consist entirely of the dust or fragments of shells; and, consequently, that the quantity of decomposed shells is infinitely greater than that of those which have been preserved.  These positions shall be fully established in the section upon minerals; and I shall only here exhibit the point of view in which the different strata of the earth ought to be considered.  The first bed, in which nothing of the original structure appears, is composed of mud deposited by dews, rains, and snow, and of particles of animal and vegetable substances.  The inferior beds of chalk, marle, lime-stone, and marble, are composed of the spoils of shells and other sea-bodies, mixed occasionally with entire shells or fragments of them.  But clay and vitrifiable sand are the materials composing the internal parts of the globe.  These substances were vitrified [195] at the time the earth assumed its figure, which necessarily implies, that the whole was then in a melted state.  The different species of granite, flint, free-stone in large masses, slate, and coal, derive their origin from sand and clay; and are also deposited in beds.  But tufa [sic] and pumice, free-stone and flint in small or detached pieces, crystals, metals, pyrites, most minerals, sulphurs, &c. are matters, the formation of which is recent, when compared with that of marble, calcinable stones, chalk, marle, and other substances which are disposed in horizontal beds, and contain shells, or other relicts [sic] of the ocean.

 

            As the terms I have employed may appear obscure or ambiguous, it is necessary to explain them.  By clays, I mean not only the white and yellow clays, but likewise the blue, the soft, the hard, the laminated, &c. which I consider to be the scoriae of glass, or the decompositions of glass.  By sand, I always understand vitrifiable sand; and I comprehend, under this denomination, not only the fine sand which produces free-stone, and which I maintain to be the powder of glass, or rather of tufa, but also that sand rubbed off free-stone, and the still grosser kind resembling small gravel, proceeding from granite and rock-stone, and which is brittle, angular, and reddish, and generally found in the beds of those rivers which descent precipitantly from hills or [196] mountains composed of granite or common rock.  The river Armanson, which runs by Semur in Auxois, where all the stones are of common rock, carries down great quantities of this gross, rough, and brittle sand; it is of the same nature with rock-stone, of which it is only small portions, as calcinable gravels are only particles of free-stone.  Besides, rock-stone and granite are the same substances; but I have used both terms, because they are considered by some as different species.  The same may be remarked of flints and of free-stone in large masses:  These also are species of granite; and I call them flints in large masses, because, like calcinable stones, they are disposed in beds, and also to distinguish them from flints and free-stone in small masses, as the round flints and sand-stones which have no continuation, or are not found in beds of any extent.  These are recent productions, and have not the same origin as flint and free-stone in large masses, forming regular and extensive strata.  Under slate I comprehend the blue, the white, the gray, the reddish, and all the plated stones.  These bodies are generally found below laminated clay, and seem to be nothing else but clay hardened into thin strata by drying; and this is the reason of the many cracks or fissures remarkable in such substances.  Coal and jet are likewise referable to clay, and are found under the laminated clays or slate.  By tufa I mean not only the common pumice which is [197] full of holes, and has an organized appearance, but all beds of stone formed by the sediments of running waters, all the stalactites, incrustations, and every kind of stone that dissolves by fire.  It does not admit of a doubt that all these are new substances, and that they are constantly growing.  Tufa is only a mass of stony matter, not distinguished by regular strata.  This matter is commonly found in small hollow cylinders, is regularly shaped, formed by rills or drippings at the foot or upon the declivites of hills, and consisting of coats of marle or calcareous earth.  The cylindric form is the specific character of this kind of tufa, and it is always either oblique or streight [sic], according to the direction of the rills by which it is produced.  The extent of these spurious quarries is inconsiderable, and generally proportioned to the height of the mountains which furnish the materials of their growth.  The intervals between the cylinders of the tufa, by the daily addition of fresh stony matter, are at last filled up, and the whole assumes a compact and solid form; but it never acquires the hardness of stone, and, for that reason, is denominated by Agricola, marga tofacea fistulosa. In the tufa are often found impressions of the leaves of such trees and plants as grow in the neighbourhood; land-shells, well preserved, are likewise frequently found in the tufa, but never any sea-shells; it is, therefore, a recent production, and ought to be ranked with [198] stalactites, incrustations, &c.  All these new substances are a kind of spurious stones, formed by the wasting of others, but never arrive at the consistence of real petrifaction.

 

            Crystal, precious stones, every stone that has a regular feature, and even flints in small masses and consisting of concentric coats, whether found in the perpendicular fissures of rocks, or elsewhere, are only exudation, or the concreting juices of flint in large masses; they are, therefore, new and spurious productions, the genuine stalactites of flint or of granite. 

 

            Shells are never found in common rock or granite, nor in free-stone, although they often appear in vitrifiable sand, from which free-stone derives its origin.  This circumstance seems to indicate, that sand, unless when perfectly pure, cannot unite into free-stone or granite; and that a mixture of shells, or of other heterogeneous bodies, totally prevents it from cementing.  I have often examined those small round stones, found in beds of sand that are mixed with shells, and never could discover in them a single shell.  These round stones are true concretions of free-stone, formed in those places where the sand is pure, and not mixed with heterogeneous matter; which is the reason why no larger masses are produced.

 

            We formerly remarked, that, at Amsterdam, which is a very low country, sea-shells were found 100 feet below the surface, and at Marly- [199] la-Ville, 6 leagues from Paris, at the depth of 75 feet.  They have also been found in mines below beds of rock of  50, 100, 200, and even of 1000 feet thick, as is apparent in the Alps and Pyernnees, where shells and other sea-bodies are found in the inferior strata of immense rocks, that have been cut through in a perpendicular direction.  But to proceed in order:  Shells are found in the mountains of Spain, France, and England, in all the marble quarries of Flanders, in the mountains of Gueldres, in all the hills round Paris, in those of Burgundy and Champagne; in a word, in all places where the basis is not composed of free-stone or tufa; and, in all these places, the substance of the stones consists more of shells than of any other matter.  By shells, I mean not only the remains of shell-fish, but likewise those of crustaceous animals, the bristles of sea-hedge-hogs, and all the productions of sea-insects, as corals, madrepores, astroites, &c.  Any man may be convinced, by the evidence of his own eyes, that, in most marbles and calcinable stones, the proportion of sea-bodies is so great, as to exceed the matter by which they are united.

 

            But, farther, sea-bodies are found even on the tops of the highest mountains of the Alps; for example, on the top of Mount Cenis, in the mountains of Genes, in the Apennines, and in most of the stone and marble quarries of Italy.  They appear in the stones of which the most [200] antient buildings in Rome are constructed, in the mountains of Tirol, in the centre of Italy, on the top of Mount Paterne near Boulogne, in the hills of Pouille, in those of Calabria, in many parts of Germany and of Hungary, and, lastly, in all the high grounds of Europe.*

 

            In Asia and Africa, travellers have remarked several places, for example, “upon the Castravan mountains, above Barute,” says Shaw,+ “where there is a curious bed of whitish stone, but of the slate-kind, which contains, in every streak of it, a great number and variety of fishes.  These, for the most part, lie exceedingly flat and compressed, like the fossil fern plants; yet, at the same time, they are so well preserved, that the smallest strokes and lineaments of their fins, scales, and other superficial diversities are easily distinguished.”  Between Cairo and Suez, and particularly upon all the hills of Barbary, says the same author, are many petrified shells and echini; most of them exactly correspond with the different species still existing in the Red Sea.  As to Europe, petrified fishes are to be met with in Switzerland, Germany, the quarry of Oningen, &c.

 

            Fossil shells, says M. Bourguet, are to be found in the long chain of mountains stretching from Portugal to the most easterly parts of China, in the valleys of Europe, and in all the [201] mountains of Africa and America; and hence, he remarks, we may conclude, that they also exist in those parts of the globe with which we are still unacquainted.

 

            The islands of Europe, of Asia, and of America, wherever men have had occasion to dig, whether in the mountains or in the vallies [sic], furnish many examples of fossil shells; and this circumstance demonstrates, that islands are analogous in structure and formation to their neighbouring continents.*

 

            These facts are sufficient to prove, that fossil shells, petrified fishes, and other productions of the ocean, exist in great quantities in almost every place where proper investigations have been made.  “It is true,” says Tancrid Robinson, “that sea-shells are dispersed occasionally on the earth by armies, and by the inhabitants of towns and villages.  La Loubere relates, in his voyage to Siam, that the monkeys of the Cape of Good Hope perpetually amuse themselves in transporting shells from the shores of the sea to the tops of the mountains. But this is no solution to the question, why these shells are dispersed through every climate of the earth, or why they are found in the bowels of the highest mountains, and disposed in beds, like those in the bottom of the ocean.”

 

            Upon perusing an Italian letter, printed at Paris in the year 1746, concerning the changes [202] this globe has undergone, I was astonished to find a repetition of Loubere’s sentiments.  Petrified fishes, in the opinion of this writer, are always of rare species, which were rejected from the Roman tables, because they were not esteemed to be wholesome:  And as to fossil shells, he says, that the pilgrims brought from Syria, in the time of the crusades, those shells peculiar to the Levant, which are now found petrified in France, in Italy, and in other parts of Christendom.  Why did he not add, that the monkeys transported shells to the tops of the highest mountains, which never were inhabited by men?  This he might have done with great facility, and it would have given an air of credibility to his hypothesis!  How should men, who pretend to philosophy, differ so widely in their opinions?  It is not sufficient, it would appear, to find fossil shells in almost every part of the earth where pits have been dug, nor to have quoted the testimonies of natural historians, as they may, according to certain systems, have imagined that shells existed where none were to be found:  We shall, therefore, to prevent all prejudices of this kind, quote the authority of some authors who had no theory to support, and whose habits of observation could only enable them to recognise shells that were entire, and in the best preservation.  This testimony will, perhaps, have greater authority with men who cannot judge of the [203] facts, nor know the distinction between real shells and their petrifactions.

 

            Every man may examine with his eyes the banks of shells in the hills round Paris, and especially in the stone-quarries, as at Chaussee, near Seve, at Isly, Passy, and other places.  A great quantity of lenticular stones are to be found at Viller-cotterets; the rocks are almost entirely composed of them; and they are irregularly interspersed with a kind of cement, by which they are united.  At Chaumont, the quantity of shells is so great, that the whole hills, which are pretty high, appear to consist of nothing else. The same phaenomenon is exhibited at Courtagnon near Rheims, where there is a bank of shells of about four leagues broad, and the length is still more considerable.   I mention these places, because they are famous, and the shells strike the eyes of every beholder.

 

            With regard to foreign countries, let us attend to the remarks of travellers.

 

            “In Syria and Phoenicia, in the neighbourhood particularly of Latikea, the rocks are of a hard chalky substance, from when the adjacent city might borrow the name of the White Promontory. The Nakoura, formerly called the Scala Tyriorum, is of the same nature and complexion; both of them including a great variety of corals, shells, and other remains of the deluge.”*  [204]

 

            “But fossil shells, and other the like testimonies of the deluge, are very rare in the mountains near Sinai, the original menstruum, perhaps, of these marbles being too corrosive to preserve them.  Yet, at Corondel, where the rocks approach nearer to our free-stone, I found a few chamae and pectunculi, and a curious echinus of the discoid kind.  The ruins of the small village at Ain-el-Mousa, and the several conveyances we have there for water, are all of them full of fossil shells.  The old walls of Suez, and the remains that are left us of its harbour, are likewise of the same materials, all of them probably from the same quarry.  Between Suez and Cairo, likewise, and all over the mountains of Lybia, near Egypt, every little rising ground and hillock discovers great quantities of the echini, as well as of the bivalve and turbinated shells, most of which exactly correspond with their respective families still preserved in the Red Sea.”*

 

            The moving sand in the neighbourhood of Raz Sem, in the kingdom of Barca, covers many palm-trees, echini, and other petrifactions.  Raz Seme signifies the head of a fish, and is the name of what is called the petrified village, where it has been alledged, that men and women, with their children, cattle, furnitures, &c. may be seen converted into stone.  “But,” says Mr Shaw, “all this is mere fiction, as I learned not only [205] from Mr Mair, Consul at Tripoli, who sent several people to examine into the fact, but also from men of credit and learning who had been on the spot.”

            Near the Pyramids Mr Shaw discovered some stones that had been hewn by workmen, and were mixed with little round bodies like lentils, and some of them resembled barley half peeled.  “These,” he says, “were supposed to have been fragments of citruals left by the workmen, and are now petrified. But this account appears to be very improbable,” &c.  These lentils and grains of barley are nothing but petrified shells, known to every naturalist by the name of lentil-stones.

 

            “Many fossil stones,” says Misson,* “are found in the neighbourhood of Maestricht, especially near the village of Zichen or Tichen, and in the mountain called the Huns.”

 

            “In the environs of Sienne, near Certaldo, are many mountains of sand filled with different kinds of shells.  Monte-mario, about a mile from Rome, is also full of them.  I have remarked them in the Alps, in France, and in other places.  Olearius, Steno, Cambden, Speed, and many other writers, have related the same phaenomena.”+

 

            “The island of Cerigo,” says Thevenot,3 “was called Porphyris by the antients, on ac- [206] count of the quantities of porphyry found in it.”  Now, porphyry, as observed above, is composed of the prickles of the echinus, or sea-hedge-hog, united by a very hard stony cement. 

 

            “Opposite to Inchené, a village on the east bank of the Nile, I found petrified plants growing naturally on a piece of ground about two leagues in length, and of an inconsiderable breadth.  This is one of the most singular productions in nature.  The plants resembled the white corals that grow in the Red Sea.”*

 

            “There are several species of petrifactions on Mount Libanus, and, among mothers, flat stones which contain the skeletons of fishes entire, and well preserved; chesnuts [sic], and small branches of coral, of the same species with what grows in the Red Sea, are likewise found on this mountain.”+

 

            “In mount Carmel,” says Shaw, “we gather a great many hollow stones, lined in their insides with a variety of sparry matter, which, from some distant resemblance, are said to be petrified olives, melons, peaches, and other fruit.  These are commonly bestowed upon pilgrims, not only as curiosities, but as antidotes against several distempers:  The olives, which are the lapides Judaici, as they are commonly called, have been always looked upon, when dissolved in the juice of lemons, as an approved medi- [207] cine against the stone and gravel.”*  These lapides Judaici are the points of the chinus. 

           

            “M. la Roche, a physician, gave me some petrified olives, called lapides Judaici, which grow in great quantities upon the mountains, where are to be found, according to my information, other stones, which in their inside contain perfect representations of the natural parts of men and women.”+  These are the hysterolithes.

 

            “In going from Smyrna to Tauris,” says Tavernier, “when we came to Tocat, the heat was excessive; we therefore left the common road to the north of us, and went by the mountains, where there are always shade and cool breezes.  In many places we found snow; and, upon the tops of some of these mountains, we saw shells resembling those upon the sea-shore, which is an extraordinary phaenomenon.”

 

            Let us attend to what Olearius says concerning petrified shells he observed in Persia, and in the rocks where the sepulchers have been cut near the village Pyrmaraus.

 

            “Three of us ascended, by mutually assisting each other, the most frightful precipices, and at last gained the summit, where we found four large chambers, with several niches cut out of the solid rock:  But what struck us most was, to find in this vault, on the top of the [208] mountain, muscle-shells [sic]; and in some parts they appeared in such quantities, that this whole rock seemed to consist of nothing but sand and shells.  In returning from Persia, we perceived several of these shelly mountains upon the coasts of the Caspian Sea.”

 

            To these authorities many others might be added, were I not apprehensive of tiring those who need no additional proofs on this subject, and who have perceived with their eyes, as I have done, the existence of shells in all places where they have searched for.

 

            In France, we find not only the shells belonging to our own coasts, but those which never appeared in our seas.  Some philosophers even alledge, that the number of foreign petrified shells greatly exceeds those of our own climate.  But this opinion seems not to be well founded; for, independent of such shells as lie in the bottom of deep water, and are seldom brought up by fishers, and, of course, are regarded by us as foreigners, though they may exist in our seas, I find, upon comparison, that more of the petrified shells belong to our own shores than to any other.  For example, all the pectines, most cockles, muscles, oisters [sic], trumpet-shells, ear-shells, limpets, nautili, stars, tubulites, corals, madrepores, &c. which are found so universally, are really produced in our seas:  And, though many sea-bodies appear, which are either foreign or unknown, as the cornu ammonis, the lapi- [209] des Judaici, the large screw, the buccinum called abajour, &c. yet I am convinced, by repeated observation, that the number of these species is inconsiderable, when compared with the shells which belong to our own coasts. Beside, the madrepores, astroites, and all those sea-bodies formed by insects, constitute the basis of our marbles and lime-stone; for the shells, however abundant, make but a small part of these stones, and many of them are produced in our own seas, and particularly in the Mediterranean.

 

            The Red Sea produces corals, madrepores, and sea-plants, more abundantly than any other.  The port of Tor furnishes an amazing quantity; in calm weather, the quantity exhibited is so great, that the bottom of the sea resembles a forest:  Some of the branched madrepores rise from eight to ten feet high.  They are also very common in the different parts of the Mediterranean; and are to be found in all the gulfs, islands, &c. of every temperate climate, where the sea is not very deep.

 

            My Peyssonel was the first who discovered that coral, madrepores, &c. were not plants, but that they derived their origin from animals.  The truth of this discovery was long doubted:  Some naturalists at first rejected it with disdain.  But it soon gained universal assent; and every man is now satisfied, that what was formerly called sea-plants, are nothing but hives, or rather lodges, formed by insects for their own [210] habitation. These bodies were originally classed with minerals, then with plants, and now they must for ever be recognised [sic] as the genuine operation of animals.

 

            Many shall fish inhabit the deepest parts of the ocean, and are never thrown upon the coasts; authors have, therefore, termed them Pelagiae, to distinguish them from the other kinds which they call Littorales.  It is probable that the cornu ammonis, and some other species, found only in a petrified state, belong to the former, and that they have been impregnated with stony matter in the very places where they are discovered.  It is also probable, that the species of some animals have been extinguished, and that these shells may be ranked among this number.  The extraordinary fossil bones found in Siberia, in Canada, in Ireland, and several other places, seem to confirm this conjecture; for no animal has hitherto been discovered to whom bones of such enormous size could possibly belong.

 

            Fossil shells, says Woodward, are found from the top to the bottom of quarries, in pits, and in the deepest mines of Hungary:  And we are informed by Mr Ray, that they are found in the rocks on the shores of Calda, and in Pembrokeshire, at the depth of 200 fathoms.*

 

            Shells not only appear in a petrified state at great depths, and on tops of the highest mountains, but they are also found in their na- [211] tural condition, having the colour, lustre, and lightness of sea-shells; so that, to be fully satisfied on this subject, nothing farther is requisite than to compare them with the shells found on the shores of the sea.  The slightest examination will convince us, that petrified and fossil shells are precisely the same with those of the ocean; for they are marked with the same furrows and articulations, however minute; and, in the glossopetri and other teeth of fishes, which are sometimes found adhering to the jaw-bone, it is obvious to remark, that the teeth are worn and polished at the extremities, and that they have been used by the living animals.

 

            Fossil shells are almost every where to be met with; and, of those of the same species, some are small, others large, some young, others old, some entire, others imperfect; and sometimes young ones appear adhering to the old.

 

            The shell-fish called Purpura, has a long tongue, the extremity of which is so sharp and osseous, that it pierces the shells of other fishes, in order to extract nourishment from them.  Shells pierced in this manner are often found in the bowels of the earth; which is an incontestable proof that they were formerly inhabited by living fishes, and that they existed in the same places with the purpura.*

 

            The obelisks of St Peter’s at Rome, according to John of Latran, were said to have been [212] brought from the Egyptian pyramids:  They consist of a red granite, which, as formerly remarked, contains no shells.  But the antient marbles of Africa and Egypt, and the porphyry said to have been brought from Solomon’s temple, and the palaces of the Egyptian kings, and employed in several of the Roman buildings, are full of shells.  Red porphyry is composed of an infinite number of the prickles of that species of echinus called a sea-chesnut [sic]; they are placed very near each other, and form the white points of the porphyry.  Each of these points have a black speck in the middle, which is the section of the longitudinal tube of the prickle of the echinus.  At Ficin in Burgundy, three leagues from Dijon, there is a red stone so similar to porphyry, that it differs only in density, not being harder than marble:  It is entirely composed of the points or prickles of the echini, and the stratum of it is considerable both in thickness and extent.  Many excellent pieces of workmanship are made of it in this province, and particularly the steps that lead to the pedestal of the equestrian statue of Louis le Grand at Dijon.  This species of stone is also found in Montbard in Burgundy; it is softer than marble; but it contains still more prickles of the echini, and a smaller proportion of red matter.  Thus the antient porphyry of Egypt, and the porphyry of Burgundy, differ only in the degree of hardness, and in the quantity of [213] prickles or points of the echinus contained in them.

 

            With regard to what is called green porphyry, I imagine it to be rather a granite than a porphyry.  It is not, like the red porphyry, composed of the prickles of the echinus; and its substance resembles more that of common granite.  The antient walls of Volatera in Tuscany, have been built of stones in which are many shells, and this wall was built 2500 years ago.*  Most marbles, porphyries, and other stones employed in the buildings of the antients, contain shells, and other productions of the ocean, in the same manner as some of our modern marbles.  Hence we conclude with safety, that, independent of the testimony of the holy writ, the earth, before the deluge, was composed of the same materials that it is at present.

 

            Upon the whole, it is apparent, that petrified shells are found in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, and in every place where proper researches have been made.  They are also found in America, in the Brasils, for example, in Tucumama, in Terra Magellanica, and in such vast quantities in the Antilles, that what the inhabitants call lime, which lies immediately below the soil, is nothing but a congeries of shells, corals, madrepores, astroites, and other sea-bodies.  These incontestable facts would have led me to conclude that petrified shells, and other productions of the [214] ocean, were to be found through the whole continent of America, and especially in the mountains, as is affirmed by Woodward. But M. de la Condamine, who lived several years in Peru, assures me, that he was never able to discover any of them in the Cordeliers, although he had diligently searched for them.  This phaenomenon would indeed be singular, and would lead to conclusions still more singular.  But, I confess, the testimony of this celebrated observer notwithstanding, I am strongly inclined to believe that there is, in the mountains of Peru, as well as every where else, petrified shells and other sea-bodies, although they have not yet been discovered.  In matters that depend on testimony, the positive evidence of two witnesses is a compleat proof; but the evidence of ten thousand witnesses, who only declare in the negative, that they never observed a particular appearance, give rise to nothing more than a slight doubt.  Thus reason, joined to the force of a general analogy, obliges me to persist in believing that fossil shells will still be found in the mountains of Peru, especially if they be searched for in the sides, and not on the very summits.

 

            The tops of high mountains are generally composed of granite, free-stone, and other vitrifiable materials, which never contain shells.  These matters were all formed out of beds of sand, when they were covered by the sea.  But, when the waters left the mountains, they would [215] carry off the sand, and other light bodes, into the plains, and leave nothing on their tops but those beds of rock which had been formed below the stratum of sand.  At two, three, or four hundred fathom below the summit of these mountains, we often find marbles and other calcinable matters, disposed in parallel beds, and containing shells and other sea-bodies.  Hence, if M. de la Condamine examined only the most elevated places, which consist of granite, of free-stone, or of vitrifiable sand, it is not surprising that he did not find fossil shells.  But he ought to have explored the lower parts of the Cordeliers, and he would unquestionably have discovered beds of marble, earth, &c. mixed with shells; for such beds have been found in every part of the world that has undergone a proper examination.

 

            But, supposing it to be a fact, that there are no productions of the ocean in the mountains of Peru, nothing could be concluded from it that would affect our theory.  Some parts of the globe, and particularly places of such elevation as the Cordeliers, might never have been covered with the sea.  These mountains, however, would be an ample field for curious observation.  They would not, in that case, consist of parallel beds.  Their materials would be very different from all others:  They would have no perpendicular fissures:  The structure of the stones and rocks would have no resemblance to those of [216] other countries:  Lastly, These mountains would exhibit the antient structure of the earth before it was changed by the motion of the waters; they would discover the primitive state of the globe, its original form, the natural arrangement and connection of its parts. But this notion is supported by too slender a foundation; and it is more consonant to the rules of philosophy to believe that fossil shells exist in the mountains of Peru, in the same manner as they exist every where else.

 

            With regard to the position of shells in beds of earth or of stone, let us attend to the following passage of Woodward:  “All the shells that are found in numberless strata of earth, and rocks, in the highest mountains, and in the most profound quarries and mines, in flint, cornelian, agate, &c. and in masses of sulphur, marcasites, and other mineral and metallic bodies, are filled with the same substances that compose the strata in which they are included, and never with any heterogeneous matter;” p. 206. &c.--- “We now find in the sandstone of all countries (the specific gravity of the several sorts whereof is very little different, being generally to water as 2½ or 29/16 to 1) only those conchae, pectines, cochleae, and other shells that are nearly of the same gravity, viz. 2½ or 29/16 to 1.  But these are ordinarily found enclosed in it in prodigious numbers; whereas, of oister-shells, (which are in [217] gravity but as about 21/3 to 1) of echini, (which are but as 2, or 21/8 to 1) or the other lighter kinds of shells, scarce one ever appears therein.  On the contrary, in chalk, (which is lighter than stone, being but as about being 21/10 to 1) there are only found echini, and other lighter sorts of shells;” p. 32. 33.

 

            It must be remarked, that what Woodward says with respect to specific gravity, is not universally true; for shells of different specific gravities are often found in the same matters; shells of cockles, of oisters, and of echini, for example, are found in the same bed of stones or of earth.  In the cabinet of the French King, there is a cockle petrified in a cornelian, and echini petrified in an agate.  Hence the difference in the specific gravity of shells has had less influence upon their position in the strata of the earth than Woodward would have us to believe.  The reason why the shells of echini, and others of a light texture, abound so much in chalk, is owing to their circumstance, that chalk itself is only decomposed shells; those of the echini being lighter and thinner than others, would be most easily reduced to powder or chalk; and hence beds of chalk could only exist in those places where were formerly collected by the sea great quantities of light shells, the destruction of which would form that chalk in which still find shells that have resisted the [218] operation of time, either in an entire state, or in fragments sufficient to discover their species.

 

            This subject shall be treated more fully in the article of Minerals; I shall here only observe, that Woodward’s expressions are often too general.  He appears to assert, that shells are found as frequently, and in as great abundance, in flints, cornelians, calcedonii, ores, and sulphur, as in other matters.  But the fact is, that shells are a very rare phaenomenon in vitrifiable or purely inflammable substances; and, in chalk, marle, and marbles, the quantity of them is so prodigious, that it is impossible to affirm that the lighter and heavier shells are uniformly found in strata, corresponding to their specific gravities, though, in general, this may be the case oftener than otherwise.  They are all impregnated with the bodies of which they are immersed, whether in the horizontal beds, or in the perpendicular fissures, because the whole has been effected by the operation of water, though at different times and in different manners.  Those found in the horizontal beds of stone, marble, &c. have been transported and deposited by the waves of the sea; and those found in flints, cornelians, and other substances peculiar to the perpendicular fissures, were formed by rills of water impregnated with lapidisic or metallic substances.  In both cases, the matter that fills the shells has been in the state of a fine impal- [219] pable powder; because every pore of them is compleatly filled, and the moulds of them are as exact as the impressions of a seal upon wax.

 

            It is, therefore, apparent, that, in stone, marble, &c. there are multitudes of shells so entire, and so well preserved, that they may be compared with those in our cabinets, or upon the shores of the sea.

 

            “There being, I say, besides these, such vast multitudes of shells contained in stone, &c. which are entire, fair, and absolutely free from any such mineral contagion, which are to be matched by others at this day found upon our shores, and which do not differ in any respect from them; being of the same size that those are of, and the same shape precisely; of the same substance and texture, as consisting of the same peculiar matter, and this constituted and disposed in the same manner as is that of their respective fellow-kinds at sea; the tendency of the fibres and striae the same; the composition of the lamellae, constituted by these fibres, alike in both; the same vestigial of tendons (by means whereof the animal is fastened and joined to the shell) in each; the same papillae; the same sutures, and every thing else, whether within or without the shell, in its cavity, or upon its convexity, in the substance, or upon the surface of it.  Besides, these fossil shells are attended with the ordi- [220] nary accidents of the marine ones, ex. gr. They sometimes grow to one another, the lesser shells being fixed to the larger:  They have balani, tubuli vermiculares, pearls, and the like, still actually growing upon them.  And, which is very considerable, they are most exactly of the same specific gravity with their fellow-kinds now upon the shores.  Nay farther, they answer all chymical [sic] trials in like manner as the sea-shells do; their parts, when dissolved, have the same appearance to view, the same smell and taste.”*

 

            I have often observed, with astonishment, whole mountains, chains of rocks, and extensive quarries, so full of shells, and other sea-bodies, that there was hardly space left for the matters in which they are deposited.

 

            I have seen some arable fields so full of petrified cockles, that they might be picked up by a blind man, others entirely covered with cornu ammonis, and others with cardites; and the more this subject is inquired into, we shall be the more thoroughly convinced, that the number of petrifactions is infinite, and that it was absolutely impossible that all the animals which inhabited these shells could exist at the same time.

 

            I have farther remarked, that the stones of those arable lands which abound with petrified shells in an entire form, well preserved, and detached from all other matter, are frittered down [221] by frost, which destroys stones, but has little effect upon petrified shells.

 

            These immense quantities of petrified sea-bodies, found in so many different places and situations, prove, that they could not be transported and deposited by the waters of the deluge; for the greatest part of them, instead of being found in the bowels of the earth, and in solid marble at the depth of seven or eight hundred feet, behoved [sic] to have remained on the surface. 

 

            In all quarries, petrified shells form part of the internal structure of the stone, the surface of which is often covered with stalactites, a matter much less antient than the stone that contains the shells.  Another proof that these shells could not be derived from the deluge is, that the bones, horns, claws, &c. of land-animals are seldom found in a petrified state, and are never incorporated in marble, or other hard stones; whereas, if these effects had been produced by the deluge, the remains of land-animals would have been found in marbles, as well as those of fishes.

 

            To alledge, that the earth was entirely dissolved at the time of the deluge, is a mere gratuitous supposition, which required a second miracle in order to give water the power of an universal dissolvent.  Besides, it infers an evident contradiction; for, if water was then an universal menstruum, how could shells have been preserved in the entire state in which we find them?  [222]  This is an evident demonstration, that no such dissolution took place, and that the parallel strata were not formed in an instant, but were gradually produced by successive sediments; for, it is apparent to every observer, that the disposition of all the materials composing the earth has been occasioned by the operation of water.  The only question, therefore, that remains, is, whether this arrangement of parts was produced all at once, or in a succession of time?  Now, it has already been shown, that it could not possibly happen at one time; because the materials are not disposed according to their specific gravities, and because they never suffered a general dissolution.  This arrangement, therefore, must have originated from successive sediments.  Any other cause, or particular revolution, would have given rise to an arrangement totally different.  Besides, particular revolutions, or accidental causes, could never have produced a uniform disposition of horizontal and parallel strata throughout the whole globe.

 

            Let us attend to what the historian of the Academy* has said upon this subject.

 

            “The many marks of extensive inundations, and the manner in which mountains must be conceived to have been produced, demonstrate, that the surface of this earth has suffered great revolutions.  However deep we penetrate in- [223] to the globe, we discover nothing but ruins, bodies of different kinds amassed and incorporated without any order or apparent design.  If there be any regularity in the structure of the earth, it lies too deep for our researches; we must, therefore, confine ourselves to the ruins of the external crust, which will be sufficient to occupy the attention of philosophers.”

 

            “M. de Jussieu discovered, in the neighbourhood of St Chaumont, a great quantity of slaty [sic] or laminated stones, every lamina of which was marked with the impression of a stem, leaf, or other portion of some plant.  In the impressions of leaves, they were uniformly extended, as if they had been streached [sic] in the stones by the hand; a clear demonstration that they had been transported by water, which always keeps leaves in that position: Their situations were various, and sometimes they lay across each other.”

 

            “It is natural to imagine, that a leaf deposited by water upon soft mud, and then covered by a similar layer of mud, would impress upon the lowermost layer the figure of its one side, and upon the uppermost the figure of its opposite side; and, after these layers hardened and petrified, that they would each bear an impression of a different side of the leaf.  But this supposition, however natural, does not take place:  The two laminae of stone uni- [224] formly bear the impression of the same side ofo the leaf, the one in alto, the other is basso-relief.  For this observation, with regard to the figured stones of St Chaumont, we are indebted to M. de Jussieu; but we leave the explication of it to himself, and shall proceed to remarks of a more general and interesting nature.”

 

            “All the impressions on the stones of Saint Chaumont are of foreign plants, which are not to be found in any part of France; they are natives either of the East Indies, or of the warmer climates of America.  Most of them belong to the capillary tribes, and they are generally particular species of ferns, the close texture of which enables them both to make deep impressions, and to remain long in a state of preservation.  M. Leibnitz was astonished to find the impressions of the leaves of a few East India plants upon some stones in Germany:  In the example under consideration, the wonder is greatly augmented; for, by some unaccountable destination of nature, it would appear, in all the stones of Saint Chaumout, not a single impression of a native plant is to be found.”

 

            “From the number of fossil shells in the mountains and quarries exhibited in this country, as well as in many others, it is apparent, that it must have formerly been covered with [225] the sea.  But how could the American or Indian oceans come hither?”

 

            “To solve this and other surprising phaenomena, we may suppose, with much probability, that the sea originally covered the whole globe.  But this supposition will not answer; because no terrestrial plants could then exist:  The plants of one country, therefore, could only be transported to another by great inundations.”

 

            “M. de Jussieu imagines, that, as the bed of the sea is always rising higher by means of the mud and sand incessantly carried into it by the rivers, the sea, at first confined by natural dikes, might at last surmount them, and spread over the land to great distances; or, which would produce the same effect, the dikes might in time be rendered so thin, by the constant operation of the water, that they would at last give way.  Soon after the formation of the earth, when nothing had assumed a regular or settled form, sudden and prodigious revolutions might then be produced, of which we have now no examples, because every thing is in such a fixed and permanent state, that only slow and inconsiderable changes can take place:  It is for this reason that we find a difficulty in crediting revolutions more sudden and tremendous.”

 

            “By some of these great revolutions the West [226] or East Indian Oceans might have been poured in upon Europe:  In their journey, they would tear up foreign plants, carry them off floating on the waves, and gently deposite [sic] them in shallow places, from which the waters would soon evaporate.”  [227]

Notes

 

*  Année 1720, p. 5.

+  The correspondence of Palissy’s ideas with those of the antients, is worth remarking.  “Conchulas, arenas, buccinas, [189] calculus varie insectos, frequenti solo, quibuddam etiam in montibus reperiri, certun signum maris alluvione eos coopertos loco volunt Herodotus, Plato, Strabo, Seneca, Tertullianus, Plutarchus, Ovidius, et alii;” Terra et aqua, p. 7 [this note straddles two pages, with the break occurring where indicated above.  Back to page 189].

 

*  See Steno, Ray, Woodward, &c.

+  See Shaw’s travels, p. 344 [back to page 201].

 

*  See Lettres philos. Sur la formation des sels, p. 305 [back to page 202].

 

* See Shaw’s travels, p. 344 [back to page 204].

 

*  Shaw’s travels, p. 444 [back to page 205].

 

*  See Voyage de Misson, tom .3. p. 109.

+  Ibid. tom. 2. p. 312.

3.  Voyage de Thevenot, tom. 1. p. 25 [back to page 206].

 

*  See Voyage de Paul Lucas, tom. 2. p. 380.

+  Ibid. tom. 3. p. 326 [back to page 207].

 

*  See Shaw’s travels, p. 444.

+  Voyag. de Monconys, p. 344 [back to page 208].

 

*  See Ray’s discourses, p. 178 [back to page 211].

 

*  See Woodward, p. 296. 300 [back to page 212].

 

*  See Steno de solido intra solidum, p. 63 [back to page 214].

 

*  Woodward, p. 23. 24 [back to page 221].

 

*  Année 1718, p. 3 [back to page 223].