Miscellaneous Discourses, Chapter 5 · Section 1 · Subsection 3
Of formed Stones, Sea-ſhells, and oth… Marine-like Bodies found at great d… ſtances from the Shores:
ANother ſuppoſed Effect of the Floo… was a bringing up out of the Sea, a… ſcattering all the Earth over an innumerabl… multitude of Shells and Shell-fiſh; there b… ing of theſe ſhell-like Bodies, not only o… lower Grounds and Hillocks, but upon t… higheſt Mountains, the Appeunine and Alp… themſelves. A ſuppoſed Effect, I ſay, becauſe it is not yet agreed among the Learned, wh… ther theſe Bodies, formerly called petrif… Shells, but now a-days paſſing by the nam… of formed Stones, be original Productions of Nature, formed in imitation of the Shells of Fiſhes; or the real Shells themſelves, either remaining ſtill entire and uncorrupt, or petrified and turned into Stone, or at leaſt, Stones caſt in ſome Animal Mold. Both parts have ſtrong Arguments and Patrons. I ſhall not ballance Authorities, but only conſider and weigh Arguments.
Thoſe for the latter Part, wherewith I ſhall begin, are,
Firſt, Becauſe it ſeems contrary to that great Wiſdom of Nature, which is obſervable in all its Works and Productions, to deſign every thing to a determinate end, and for the attaining that end, make uſe of ſuch ways, as are moſt agreeable to mans reaſon, that theſe prettily ſhaped Bodies, ſhould have all thoſe curious Figures and Contrivances (which many of them are formed and adorned with) generated or wrought by a Plaſtic Vertue, for no higher end, than only to exhibit ſuch a form. This is Mr. Hook's Argumentation. To which Dr. Plot anſwers, That the end of ſuch Productions, is to beautifie the World with thoſe Varieties; and that this is no more repugnant to the Prudence of Nature, than is the production of moſt Flowers, Tulips, Anemones, &c. of which we know as little uſe of, as of formed Stones. But hereto we may reply, That Flowers are for the ornament of a Body, that hath ſome degree of life in it: a Vegetative Soul, whereby it performs the actions of Nutrition, Auction and Generation; which it is reaſonable ſhould be ſo beautified: And, Secondly, Flowers ſerve to embrace and cheriſh the Fruit, while it is yet tender; and to defend it from the injuries of Sun and Weather; eſpecially for the Protection and Security of the Apices, which are no idle or uſeleſs part, but contain the Maſculine Sperm and ſerve to give fecundity to the Seed Thirdly, Though formed Stones may be uſeful to Man in Medicine, yet Flowers afford us abundantly more uſes, both in Meat and Medicine.
Yet I muſt not diſſemble, that there is a Phaenomenon in Nature, which doth ſome what puzzle me to reconcile, with the prudence obſervable in all its works; and ſeem ſtrongly to prove, that Nature doth ſometimes ludere, and delineate Figures, for … other end, but for the ornament of ſome Stones, and to entertain and gratifie our Curioſity, or exerciſe our Wits. That is, tho… elegant impreſſions of the Leaves of Plan… upon Cole ſlate, the knowledge whereof, … muſt confeſs my ſelf to owe to my Learned and Ingenious Friend, Mr. Edward Lloyd o… Oxford, who obſerved of it in ſome Cole pits in the way from Wycheſter in Gloceſterſhire to Briſtoll; and afterwards communicated to me a Sample of it. That which … found, was marked with the Leaves of two o… three kinds of Ferns and of Harts-tongue. He told me alſo, that Mr. Woodward, a Londoner ſhewed him very good Draughts of th… common female Fern, naturally …ormed i… Cole, which himſelf found in Mendip Hills, and added, that he had found in the ſame Pits, Draughts of the common Cinquefoil, Clover-graſs and Strawberries. But theſe Figures are more diligently to be obſerved and conſidered.
Secondly, There are found in the Earth at great diſtance from the Sea, real Shells unpetrified and uncorrupted, of the exact Figure and Conſiſtency of the preſent natural Sea-ſhells, and in all their parts like them, and that not only in the lower Grounds and Hillocks near the Sea, but in Mountains of a conſiderable height, and diſtant from the Sea. Chriſtianus Mentzelius in his Diſcourſe concerning the Bononian Phoſphorus, gives us a relation of many Beds of them found mingled with Sand in the upper part of a high Mountain not far from Bologna in Italy. His words are theſe, Non procul monte Paterno dicto, lapidis Bononienſis patria, unico forte milliari Italico diſtanti (loci nomen excidit memoriâ) ingens mons imminet praeruptus à violentia torrentium aquarum, quas imbres frequentes ex vicinis montibus confluentes efficiunt, atque inſignes terrarum moles ab iſto monte proſternunt ac dejiciunt. In hac montis ruina, ſuperiore in parte viſuntur multae ſtrages ſerieſve, ex teſtis conchyliorum omnis generis, plurimâ arenâ interjectâ, inſtar ſtrati ſuper ſtratum (ut chymicorum vulgus loquitur.) Eſt enim inter haſce teſtarum conchylior… ſtrages ſeriéſve arena ad craſſitiem uln… ultra interpoſita. Erant autem teſtae va… rum conchyliorum, omnes ab invicem diſtin…e nec cuiquam lapidi impactae, adeò ut ſep… tim omnia manibus tractari & dignoſci p… rint. Effecerat hoc arena pura, nullo l… lutove intermixta, quae conchyliorum teſt …s … fervaverat per multa ſecula integras. I… rea verò diuturnitate temporis omnes iſtae … erant in albiſſimam calcem facilè reſolubila Fabius Columna alſo obſerves, that in t… tophaceous Hills and Cliffs about Andr… in Apulia, there are found various ſorts … Sea Shells, both broken and whole, unco… rupt, and that have undergone no change. A… Ovid in Metam. lib. 15. Et procul à pelago Conchae jacuere marine. I am alſo informed by my Learned and W… thy Friend Dr. Tancred Robinſon, That S… nior Settali ſhewed him in his Muſeum … Milan, many Turbens, Echini, Pearl-ſhe… (one with a Pearl in it) Pectunculi, and ſ… veral other perfect Shells, which he himſe… found in the Mountains near Genoa, and a… terwards my ſaid Friend took notice al… of ſeveral Beds of them himſelf, as he paſſe over Mount Cenis, above fifty Leagues diſtant from the Sea. Moreover, my forementioned Friend Mr. Lloyd ſent me perfect Eſcallop and Sea-Urchin Shells, exactly reſembling the like Sea-Shells, both for figure, colour, weight and conſiſtency: which he himſelf gathered up near Oxford. Now that Nature ſhould form real ſhells, without any deſign of covering an Animal, is indeed ſo contrary to that innate Prolepſis we have of the Prudence of Nature, (that is the Author of Nature) that without doing ſome Violence to our Faculties, we can hardly prevail with our ſelves to believe it: and gives great countenance to the Atheiſts aſſertion, that things were made or did exiſt by chance, without counſel or direction to any end.
Add hereto Thirdly, That there are other Bodies beſides Shells found in the Earth, reſembling the Teeth and Bones of ſome Fiſhes, which are ſo manifeſtly the very things they are thought only to reſemble, that it might be eſteemed obſtinacy in any man that hath viewed and conſidered them to deny it. Such are the Gloſſopetrae dug up in Malta in ſuch abundance, that you may buy them by meaſure, and not by tale: and alſo the Vertebres of Thornbacks and other Cartilagineous Fiſhes there found, and ſold for Stones …mong the Gloſſopetrae, which have no greater diſſimilitude to the Teeth of a living Shark, and Vertebres of a Thornback, then lying ſo long in the Earth, as they muſt needs have done, will neceſſarily induce. And if the very inſpection of theſe Bodies, is not enough to convince any man, that they are no Stones, but real Teeth and Bones, Fabius Columna proves it by ſeveral ſtrong Arguments. 1. Thoſe things which have a woody, bony or fleſhy nature, by burning are changed firſt into a Coal, before they go into a Calx or Aſhes: but thoſe which are of a tophaceous or ſtony ſubſtance, go not firſt into a Coal, but burn immediately into a Calx or Lime, unleſs by ſome vitreous or metallick mixture they be melted. Now theſe Teeth being burnt, paſs preſently into a Coal, but the tophous ſubſtance adhering to them, doth not ſo; whence it is clear, that they are of an oſſeous, and no ſtony nature.
Next he ſhews, that they do not ſhoot into this form after the manner o… Salts or Cryſtal, which I ſhall have occaſio… further to treat of by and by. Then h… proves it from that Axiom, Natura nihil f… cit fruſtra; Nature makes nothing in vai… But theſe Teeth, were they thus formed i… the Earth, would be in vain; for they coul… not have any uſe of Teeth; as neither th… Bones of ſupporting any Animal. Nature never made Teeth without a Jaw, nor Shells without an Animal Inhabitant, nor ſingle Bones, no not in their own proper Element, much leſs in a ſtrange one. Further he argues, from the difficulty or impoſſibility of the Generation of Gloſſopetrae in ſuch places; becauſe, among Tophi and Stones in thoſe dry places, there could not be found matter fit for to make them of. But granting that, …he queries whether they were generated at firſt all of a ſudden, or grew by little and …ittle from ſmall to great, as Animals Teeth, whoſe form they imitate, do. If the firſt be …aid, He demands, Whether the Tophus, out of which they were extracted, were gene…ated before or after the Teeth were perfected? If it be ſaid before, he asks, Whether …here were a place in it of the figure and magnitude of the Tooth, or did the Tooth make it ſelf a place? If the Tophus were …oncrete before, and without a cavity, the …egetative power of the Stone now in birth, …ould not by force make it ſelf a place in …he hard and ſolid Tophus; or if it could and …id, the Tophus muſt needs be rent. If there were a place before ready made in the To…hus, then was not that figure excavated in …he Tophus by the vegetative nature of the Tooth it ſelf; but the Tophus by its own nature and precedent cavity, gave the form to the Tooth. If the latter part be choſen, and it be ſaid, that the Stone by its vegetative power grew by degrees; it may be anſwered as before, that could not be; becauſe the hardneſs of the Tophus could not have yielded to the vegetative force of the Tooth, but would rather have been rent or divided by it; or rather the Tophus it ſelf muſt have vegetated, containing a cavity or uterus of the ſhape of the Tooth, into which a… oſſeous humor, penetrating through the Pores, and filling the cavity of the Ʋterus, muſt there have coagulated, and taken the form thereof, as is obſerved in Stones that have their original from a Fluor. That both Tooth and Caſe might vegetate together he denies, becauſe in all the Teeth which he had ſeen, the Baſis or Root was found broken, and that not with an uniform fracture but different in every one. Which Argument is not to be ſlighted, for that it ſhew… or proves, that there was no vegetation i… the caſe; becauſe in all other figured Foſſils it is obſerved, that they are never foun… mutilous, broken or imperfect. Neithe… can it reaſonably be ſaid or believed, tha… theſe Roots or Teeth were by ſome chanc… broken within the Tophi, but rather, tha… when they were caſually overwhelmed an… buried in that tophous Earth, they were broken off from the Jaws of the Animal in thoſe volutations, and ſo in that manner mutilated. Another Argument to prove them to be true Teeth and no Stones, he brings from their various parts and figures, which muſt elſe have been ſo wrought and formed in vain. The Tooth being not one homogeneous Body, but compounded of parts of a different conſtitution, there muſt in the formation of it be made a various election of humors, one for the Root, one for the Inner Part, one for the Superficies of it. Then for the Figures, Magnitude, Situation or Poſture, and fitting of them; ſome are great, and broad, and almoſt triangular; others narrower and ſmaller, others very ſmall and narrow, of a pyramidal figure, ſome ſtreight, ſome crooked, bending downwards, or toward the nether ſide, ſome inclining toward the left, others toward the right ſide: ſome ſerrate with ſmall Teeth, others with great Indentures (which is obſerved in the leſſer triangular ones) ſome ſmooth without any Teeth, as the narrow pyramidal ones. All which things are obſerved in Shark's Teeth, not only by the Learned Naturaliſts, but alſo by Fiſher-men and Mariners. The firſt row of Teeth in theſe Animals hanging out of the mouth, bend forward and downward; the ſecond row are ſtreight, eſpecially toward the ſides of the mouth, where they are triangular and broad, the other rows bend downward toward the inner part of the mouth. Thus far *Diſſert. De Gloſſopetra.Columna.
Fourthly, If theſe formed Stones be indeed original Productions of Nature, in imitation of Shells and Bones, how comes it to paſs, that there ſhould be none found, that reſemble any other natural Body, but the Shells and Bones of Fiſhes only? Why ſhould not Nature as well imitate the Horns, Hoofs, Teeth, or Bones of Land Animals, or the Fruits, Nuts, and Seed of Plants? Now my learned Friend Mr. Edward Lloyd above mentioned, who hath been moſt diligent in collecting, and curious in obſerving theſe Bodies of any man I know, or ever heard of, tells me, that he never found himſelf, or had ſeen in any Cabinet, or Collection, any one Stone that he could compare to any part of a Land Animal. As for ſuch that do not reſemble any part of a Fiſh, they are either Rock Plants, as the Aſtroites, Aſteriae trochites, &c. or do ſhoot into that form, after the manner of Salts and Fluors, as the Belemnites and Selenites.
Fifthly, Thoſe that deny theſe Bodies to have been the Shells and Bones of Fiſhes, have given us no ſatisfactory account of the manner of their Production. For that they do not ſhoot into that form after the manner of Salts, may be proved by many Arguments. Firſt, All Salts that ſhoot their Cryſtals or Concretions, are of one uniform ſubſtance, and their Figures are more ſimple, and may be owing to the Figure of the Principles whereof they are compounded: in other Bodies that ſhoot, as the Pyrites and Belemnites, one may obſerve ſtreight Radii or Fibres proceeding from one Center. Secondly, Did thoſe Bodies ſhoot into theſe Figures after the manner of Salts, it ſeems ſtrange to me, that two Shells ſhould be ſo adapted together at the heel, as to ſhoot out to the ſame extenſion round, and the upper and nether Valve be of different Figure, as in natural Shells. Thirdly, Were theſe Bodies produced in the manner of ſaline Concretions, it's ſtrange there ſhould be ſuch varieties of them, and their Shapes ſo regular, and exactly circumſcribed: ſo great a diverſity of Figures, arguing a greater variety of Salts, or of their modifications and mixtures, than are likely to be found in Nature; and the Curvilineous Concretions of Salts never, that I have yet ſeen, appearing in that regularity of Figure and due Circumſcription, as in theſe Bodies: which is an Argument of the Government of ſome Principle, ſuperior to Matter figured and moved, in their Formations.
4ly, Were theſe Bodies nothing but Concretions of Salts or ſaline mixtures, it ſeems no leſs ſtrange, that ſo many Liquors impregnated with all ſorts of Salts and Mineral Juices, in all proportions, having been at one time or other induſtriouſly or accidentally expoſed to cryſtallize, and let ſtand long in Veſſels, there ſhould never have been found in them any ſuch Concretions. For if any had happened, we ſhould doubtleſs have heard of them, and the Obſervers would have improved ſuch an Experiment to the Production of the like Bodies at their pleaſure. So I have finiſhed what I have to alledge in defence of the latter part, That theſe formed Stones, were ſometimes the real Shells or Bones of Fiſhes, I mean the figured part of them.
I proceed now to ſet down, what may be objected againſt this Opinion, or offered in aſſertion of the contrary, viz. That theſe Bodies are primitive Productions of Nature, in imitation of the Shells and Bones of Fiſhes.
Againſt the former Opinion we have been pleading for, it may be objected, That there follow ſuch ſtrange and ſeemingly abſurd Conſequences from it, as are hardly reconcileable to Scripture, or indeed to ſober Reaſon: as,
Firſt, That the Waters muſt have covered the whole Earth, even the higheſt Mountains, and that for a long time, there being found of theſe Shells, not only in the moſt mountainous parts of our Countrey, but in the higheſt Mountains in Europe, the Appennine and Alps themſelves, and that not only ſcattered, but amaſſed in great lumps, and lying thick in Beds of Sand, as we have before ſhewn. Now this could hardly be the effect of a ſhort Deluge, which if it had carried any Shell fiſh ſo high, would in all likelihood have ſcattered them very thin. Theſe Beds and Lumps of them neceſſarily inferring, that they muſt have bred there, which is a work of time.
Now the general Deluge laſted in the whole, but ten Months; and it's not likely the Tops of the Mountains were covered half that time. Neither is it leſs repugnant to Reaſon than Scripture; for if the Waters ſtood ſo high above the Earth, for ſo long a time, they muſt by reaſon of their Confluence, be raiſed as high above the Sea too. But what is now become of this huge Maſs of Waters, equal to ſix or ſeven Oceans? May not the Stoicks here ſet in, and help us out at a dead lift? The Sun and Moon, ſay they, might poſſibly ſup it all up. Yea, but we cannot allow time enough for that; for according to the moderate Draughts they take now a-days, one Ocean would ſuffice to water them many Ages, unleſs perchance when they were young and hot, they might need more drink. But to be ſerious, I have no way to anſwer this Objection, but by denying, that there are any Beds or great Lumps and Maſſes of theſe formed Stones to be found near the Tops of the Alps, or other high Mountains; but yet there might be ſome particular Shells ſcattered there by the general Deluge. Another thing there is as difficult to give an account off, as of the Shells getting up to the Tops of Mountains: that is, of thoſe ſeveral Beds or Floors of Earth and Sand, &c. one above another, which are obſerved in broken Mountains. For one cannot eaſily imagine, whence theſe Floors o… Beds in the manner of Strata ſuper ſtrata (as the Chymiſts ſpeak) ſhould come, but from the Sediments of great Floods, which how or whence, they could bring ſo great a quantity of Earth down, when there was but little Land above the Sea, I cannot ſee. And one would likewiſe be apt to think, that ſuch a Bed of Sands, with plenty of Cockle-ſhells intermixt, as we mentioned before in the Mountain near Bononia in Italy, muſt have been ſometimes the Bottom of the Sea. But before one can give a right judgment of theſe things, one muſt view the Mountains where ſuch Layers and Beds of Earth and Shells are found: for perchance they may not be elevated ſo high above the preſent Surface of the Sea, as one would judge by the deſcriptions of them.
Secondly, It would hence follow, that many Species of Shell-fiſh are loſt out of the World, which Philoſophers hitherto have been unwilling to admit, eſteeming the deſtruction of any one Species a diſmembring of the Univerſe, and rendring it imperfect: whereas they think the Divine Providence is eſpecially concerned to ſecure and preſerve the Works of the Creation: and that it is ſo, appears, in that it was ſo careful to lodge all Land-Animals in the Ark at the time of the general Deluge. The Conſequence is proved in that, Among theſe petrified Shells, there are many ſorts obſerved, which are not at this day, that we know of, any where to be found. Such are a whole genus of Cornua Ammonis, which ſome have ſuppoſed to be Nautili, though to me they do not ſeem ſo to be, but a different Genus by themſelves, of which there have not any been ſeen either caſt a ſhore, or raked out of the Sea, at any time, that ever I heard of. Nay, my very Learned and Honoured Friend Dr. Liſter proceeds further, and ſaith, That when he particularly examined ſome of our Engliſh Shores for Shells, as alſo the Freſh Waters and the Fields, that he did never meet with any one of thoſe Species of Shells found at- Adderton in Yorkſhire, Wansford bridge in Northamptonſhire, and about Gunthorp and Beauvoir-Caſtle, &c. any where elſe, but in their reſpective Quarries. What can we ſay to this? Why it is poſſible that many ſorts of Shell-Fiſh may be lodged ſo deep in the Seas, or on Rocks ſo remote from the Shores, that they may never come to our ſight.
Thirdly, It follows alſo, that there have been Shell fiſh in theſe cold Northern Seas of greater bulk and dimenſions, than any now living; I do not ſay in theſe, but in the moſt Southernly and Indian; viz. Cornua Ammonis of two foot diameter, and of thickneſs anſwerable.
To this I anſwer, That there are no petrified Shells that do in bigneſs much exceed thoſe of the natural Shell fiſh found in our Seas, ſave the Cornua Ammonis only, which I ſuſpect to have never been, nor had any relation to any Shells of Fiſhes: or to imitate or reſemble them, at leaſt ſome of them. As for the Nautili, they are much different from them. For the Nautili, at leaſt all the Species of them known to us, are (as Dr. Plot well obſerves) extravagantly broad at the mouth, and have not more than two other ſmall turns at the moſt, whereas the turns of the Ophiomorphites are proportionable one to another; and in number many times four or five, and ſometimes ſix, if we may believe Aldrovand. And there are Nautili lapidei, which do as nearly reſemble the Nautilus Shells as any other Cochlites do their reſpective prototypes, As Mr. Lloyd aſſures me he had obſerved many in Muſeums. And the Learned and Ingenious Mr. Richard Waller then Secretary to the Royal Society in a Letter to me dated Feb. 4.—87. writes, That he had been lately at Keinſham in Sommerſetſhire, and making a ſearch after the Cornua Ammonis, found one of the true Nautilus ſhape, covered in ſome places with a ſhelly Incruſtation with the Diaphragms to be ſeen to the Center of the Volutae, and in each Diaphragm, the hole by which they communicate one with another, by a ſtring or gut in the Fiſh. This was of a very hard Stone and large ſize, weighing at leaſt twenty eight pound, though ſome part was broken off. Another Argument that they have no relation to the common Nautili, is, that they break into pieces ſomewhat reſembling Vertebres, as I was firſt adviſed by the fore remembred Mr. Lloyd, and have ſince noted my ſelf. I alſo received from that very Ingenious and Inquiſitive Gentleman, happy in making natural Diſcoveries, Mr. William Cole of Briſtoll ſuch an Account of a ſort or two of theſe Ophiomorphus Bodies, as is enough to ſtagger any mans belief, if not utterly to overthrow his Opinion of their owning their original to any Sea-ſhell; which take in his words. Among others of this kind of Bodies which I have obſerved, I ſhall inſtance in one, which can be reduced to none but the Ophiomorphites, which I found growing between the thin Plates of a kind of brittle blew Slate in large Rocks, ſome a furlong within the Full-Sea Mark, and in ſome where the Water comes not at higheſt Tides, only in great Storms, when the Waves break, it is daſht ſometimes againſt them, being forced up by the Winds; which being broken with a convenient Tool, will ſhiver all into very thin Plates; between which I have found in abundance of thoſe Stones, but as brittle as the Slate in which they grew, and of the ſame conſiſtence; but ſo thin, that the broadeſt, being about four Inches, are not ſo thick as a Half-Crown Piece, ſome not half an Inch broad, were as thin as a Groat, and ſo proportionably up to the largeſt, covered with a Superficies as thin, and exactly of the colour of Silver foil: and where the Sea water waſheth them, and they are expoſed to the Sun and Wind when the Tide is gone, they are tarniſhed, and appear of a Gold, Purple, Blew and Red; as any thing on which Silver foil is laid, being expoſed a conſiderable time to the Sun, Wind and Weather, will do. Theſe have the ſame Spiral Figures, and as regular as the other Serpent-Stones, and being taken off with a Knife, leave the ſame impreſſions on both ſides of the Slate.
In ſome ſuch Rocks of Slate, but much harder, I found ſome of thoſe Stones of another kind, thick in proportion to their breadth, from an Inch to twenty eight Inches broad; in the broadeſt one was at the great end (on which ſome Authors have fabulouſly reported the head to grow) ſix Inches thick: all of them covered over with a white Scale, which will be taken off, one coat under another, as Pearls or the Shells of ſome Fiſhes. I ſaw ſome impreſſions as big as the Fore-wheel of a Chariot, &c. What ſhall we ſay to this? Were there ever any Shell-fiſh in ours or other Seas, as broad as a Coach-wheel? others as thin as a Groat? What is become of all this kind of Ophiomorphite Shell-fiſh? And yet (which is ſtrange) both theſe kinds by Mr. Cole's deſcription, ſeem to have been covered with Shells.
By what I have ſaid concerning theſe Ophiomorphous Stones not to have been Nautili, I would not be thought to reflect upon, or detract from the Veracity or Exactneſs of the Obſervations of Mr. Robert Hook, whom, for his Learning and deep Inſight into the Myſteries of Nature, I deſervedly honour. I queſtion not, but he found in the Keinſham Ophiomorphites perfect Diaphragms of a very diſtinct ſubſtance from that which filled the Cavities, and exactly of that kind which covered the out-ſide, being for the moſt part Whitiſh, or Mother of Pearl coloured. Mr. Waller fore-mentioned atteſts the ſame, writing in his Letter to me of Feb. 4. 1687. that in the ordinary Snake-ſtones there, the ſhelly Diaphragms were very viſible. In this reſpect they do reſemble Nautili; though for their Figure they are much different, and of a diſtinct Genus. I never broke any of the Keinſham Stones; but of thoſe found about Whitby in Yorkſhire many; but could not obſerve in them any ſhell-like Diaphragms, only they broke into ſuch pieces as I mentioned before. And my Dear and much Honoured Friend Dr. Tancred Robinſon writes me, That he had broken ſeveral Cornua Ammonis, but could never find any Diaphragms or Valves in them, though he confeſſeth Mr. Woodward ſhew'd him one with ſuch in his curious Collection of Petrifactions. So that theſe Diaphragms are not to be found in all the ſorts of them. But if they be found in ſome, it is a ſtrong preſumption, that they were at firſt in all, however they come to diſappear.
In fine, theſe Ophiomorphous Stones do more puzzle and confound me, than any other of the formed Stones whatſoever, becauſe by Mr. Hook's Deſcription of theſe of Keinſham, they ſeem to have been, or to owe their Original to Shells; and yet there is nothing like them appears at this day in out or any other Seas, as far as I have heard or read.
Thirdly, A Second Argument to prove theſe formed Stones never to have been Shells▪ Dr. Plot affords us,*Hiſt. nat. Oxf. p. 117. Becauſe that even thoſe Shells, which ſo exactly repreſent ſome ſorts of Shell-fiſh, that there can be no exception upon the account of Figure, but that they might formerly have been Shells indeed, at ſome places are found only with one Shell, and not the other. Thus in Cowley Common [in Oxfordſhire] we meet only with the gibbous, not the flat Shell of the petrified Oyſter, and ſo of the Eſcallop-Stones in the Quarries near Shotover: which if they had once been the Shells of Oyſters and Eſcallops, had ſcarce been thus parted. To this I anſwer, That this Argument is not neceſſarily concluſive; becauſe there may poſſibly be ſome reaſon of it, though we know it not, nor can eaſily imagine any. The like Anſwer may be returned to his next Argument.
Thirdly, Becauſe (ſaith the Doctor) I can by no means ſatisfie my ſelf, how it ſhould come to paſs, that in caſe theſe Bodies had once been moulded in Shells, ſome of the ſame kind ſhould be found in Beds, as the Conchites at Langley, Charlton, Adderbury; An… others ſcattered as at Glympton, and Teynton, … ſo the Oſtracites at Shotover and Cowley. N… how it ſhould fall out▪ that ſome of theſ… Bivalves ſhould always be found with thei… Shells ſeparate, as the Oſtracites and Pectines and others always cloſed together, as th… Conchites in all places I have yet ſeen.
Fourthly, Becauſe many of theſe forme… Stones ſeem now to be in fieri, (which is th… Doctor's next Argument) as the Selenites a… Shotover and Hampton-gay, the Conchytes … Glympton and Cornwell, many of which we… of a perfect Clay and others of Stone, & As for the Selenites, I grant them to hav… been in fieri, becauſe they are formed after the manner of Salts by ſhooting or cryſtallization; but concerning the Clay Cockles I ſay with the Civilians, ampliandum. But to give theſe Arguments their due, though they be not demonſtrative proofs, yet they infer a great degree of probability, and ſhrewdly urge and ſhake the contrary Opinion.
The other Arguments, the Doctor alledges, admit a plauſible ſolution, excepting ſuch as we have already touched, and given as good an anſwer to, as either the matter will admit, or we were able to give.
To the Firſt, That there are found Stones reſembling Shell-fiſh that ſtick to Rocks: I anſwer, That many of them might by accident be rub'd off the Rocks they ſtick to, or thruſt off by Birds inſinuating their Bills between the Shell and Rock, to feed upon their meat; but by what means ſoever it be, that they are ſometimes broken off, the matter of fact is certain; for we find many patelloe caſt upon the Shores by the working of the Sea, Why then might they not be brought up by the Flood?
To the Second, Why might not the Bones of Whales, Sea-horſes, all ſquamoſe Fiſhes, the great Shells of the Buccina, Murices, Conche Veneris, & Solenes, and almoſt all the cruſtaceous kind, as Crabs and Lobſters, &c. as well have been brought up and left behind by the Flood, and afterward petrified, as any of the teſtaceous kind? I anſwer, Of the great Buccina, Murices and Conchae Veneris, there are very few or none found in our Seas: it may be there are of them in the Mountains and Quarries of the Indies, were any man ſo curious as to ſearch them out: Though it's likely but few, becauſe being great things, eaſie to be ſeen, and that part of the World having been fully peopled ſoon after the Flood, their beauty might invite the Inhabitants to ſearch them out, and gather them up. But Secondly, Thoſe other kinds may poſſibly be leſs durable, and more apt to be wrought upon, to moulder, decay and be diſſolved in time by the Weather Rains and Moiſture of the Earth, or were not ſo ſuſceptive of petrifying Juices.
The Third Argument is already anſwered in the precedent Diſcourſe.
To the Fourth Argument as to what concerns the Selenites, Aſtroites and Belemnites we have anſwered already. That the Species of Brontiae cannot be the petrified Shell… of Echini Spatagi, the Arguments the Docto… alledges out of Ariſtotle and Rondeletius d… not evince. For though in ſome Seas the… may be foreign, yet in other are they plentiful enough. In our own Seas at Llandwyn in the Iſle of Angleſey we may reaſonably conjecture, they are more plentiful than the common Echini any where with us; becauſe we found more of their Shells caſt up there on the Shore, than of the Echini in any Shore about England: nay, ſo common are they there, that even the Vulgar have taken notice of them, and impoſed a Name upon them, calling them Mermayds Heads. And though their Briſtles or Prickles were but ſmall, yet were they not few or thin ſet, as Rondeletius ſaith.
How the Snake-ſtones about Huntly-nab and Whitby in Yorkſhire came to be included in Globular or Centricular Stones, is not difficult to make out: for the Cliffs thereabout being Allume-ſtone or Mine, wherein theſe Snake-ſtones lye; the Sea in Springtides and tempeſtuous weather undermines and throws down part of the Shore or Cliffs, which by the fall break in pieces, and the Ophiomorphus Stone being harder than the reſt of the Cliff, is broken off from it by the fall, or its volutation in the Sea afterward, with ſome part of the Cliff or Allume-ſtone ſticking to each ſide of it where it is concave, and by reaſon of its Figure and Striae, cannot eaſily part from it.
Laſtly, To diſſemble nothing, I have my ſelf obſerved ſome Cockle-ſtones to have ſeemingly different impreſſions or Striae upon the ſame Superficies; which Phaenomenon it is very hard to give an account of. I have alſo obſerved a large Stone almoſt as hard as Marble, that was ſo marked every where throughout with the impreſſions of Cockles and their Striae, ſo croſſing one another in every part of it, that if it were nothing but Shells amaſſed together by a ſtony Cement; thoſe Shells muſt have before their Concretion been broken into infinite ſmall pieces or fragments, ſcarce any remaining entire; which I do not ſee how any Floods or working of the Sea, could poſſibly effect.
So I have finiſhed what I had to ſay concerning this ſuppoſed Effect of the Deluge, the bringing in of Shells, and ſcattering them all over the dry Land. But yet I muſt not diſmiſs this particular, till I have ſaid ſomething to an Objection that preſently occurrs to any one who conſiders this matter. The Waters of the Flood having been ſupplied partly by Rains, partly by the breaking up of the Fountains of the great Deep, and not by any Irruption or Inundation of the Sea, how could any Sea-ſhells at all be brought in by it?
To this I anſwer, That the great Deep communicates with the Sea; and the Waters riſing up out of the ſubterraneous Abyſs, the Sea muſt needs ſucceed, elſe would there have been an empty ſpace left in the middle of the Earth; ſo that the Shell-fiſh might as well come in this way from the bottom of the Sea, as by an Inundation: in like manner as the Fiſh in the Lake of Carniola, called the Zirchnitzer See do deſcend annually under gro…nd through many great holes in the bottom, and return again by the ſame holes. To all this I might add, that into the Lands near the skirts of the Sea, and lower Hills, theſe Shells might in part be brought by particular Floods, of which many we read of, & more poſſibly than are recorded in any Hiſtory may have happened ſince the general Deluge. Hence the chief Champions of the Opinion of Mock-ſhells are not difficult to grant, that in ſome Countries, and particularly along the Shore of the Mediterranean Sea, there may all manner of Shells be found promiſcuouſly included in the Rocks or Earth, and at good diſtances too from the Sea. Which are the words of Dr. Liſter, repeated and approved by Dr. Plot. But this will not ſerve their turn; for we have before proved, that in the middle part, and near the Center of our own Countrey, at a great diſtance from the Sea, viz. in Oxfordſhire, there are found not only ſhell-like Stones, but real Shells, or Mock-ſhells (as ſome eſteem them) for Figure, Colour, Weight, Conſiſtency, or any other Accident not to be diſtinguiſhed from true Shells; and that not ſuch as have been accidentally ſcattered there, but dig'd out of the ground in plenty, and of Fiſhes that are rarely found in our Seas: Patterns whereof were ſent …e by my Ingenious Friend, Mr. Lloyd. Who, I hope will ere long gratifie the Curious, by publiſhing a general Catalogue of all the formed Stones found in England, and his Remarks upon them.
And I have likewiſe proved by good Authority, that beyond the Seas, in high Mountains, and many Leagues diſtant from the Sea too, there have been Beds of real Shells. I might have added Sharks-teeth or Gloſſepetrae, as both Goropius Becanus and Georgius Agricola teſtifie; if not in Beds, yet plentifully diſperſt in the Earth. There are ſeveral Medical Hiſtories extant (as Dr. Tancred Robinſon informs me) of perfect Shells found in Animal Bodies, in whoſe Glands they were originally formed, which is a conſiderable Objection, not eaſily to be removed.