Miscellaneous discourses concerning the dissolution and changes of the world wherein the primitive chaos and creation, the general deluge, fountains, formed stones, sea-shells found in the earth, subterraneous trees, mountains, earthquakes, vulcanoes, the universal conflagration and future state, are largely discussed and examined / by John Ray ...

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 pe∣trified 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 con∣sider 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 a∣dorned 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 an∣swers, 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 Nutriti∣on, Auction and Generation; which it is reasonable should be so beautified: And, Secondly, Flowers serve to embrace and che∣rish the Fruit, while it is yet tender; and to defend it from the injuries of Sun and Wea∣ther;

especially for the Protection and Secu¦rity of the Apices, which are no idle or use¦less part, but contain the Masculine Sperm and serve to give fecundity to the Seed Thirdly, Though formed Stones may be use¦ful 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 pru¦dence observable in all its works; and seem strongly to prove, that Nature doth some∣times ludere, and delineate Figures, for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 other end, but for the ornament of some Stones, and to entertain and gratifie our Cu¦riosity, 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 Glocester∣shire to Bristoll; and afterwards communi∣cated 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 unpe∣trified 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 consi∣derable height, and distant from the Sea. Chri∣stianus 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 torrenti∣um aquarum, quas imbres frequentes ex vici∣nis montibus confluentes efficiunt, atque in∣signes terrarum moles ab isto monte proster∣nunt ac dejiciunt. In hac montis ruina, su∣periore in parte visuntur multae strages seri∣esve, 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 di∣stant from the Sea. Moreover, my fore∣mentioned Friend Mr. Lloyd sent me perfect Escallop and Sea-Urchin Shells, exactly resem∣bling the like Sea-Shells, both for figure, co∣lour, 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 Pru∣dence 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, re∣sembling 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 Ver∣tebres of Thornbacks and other Cartilagine∣ous Fishes there found, and sold for Stones ••mong the Glossopetrae, which have no grea∣ter

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, Fa∣bius Columna proves it by several strong Argu∣ments. 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 in∣to a Coal, but the tophous substance adhe∣ring 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 ar∣gues, 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 perfe∣cted? 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 na∣ture

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 divi∣ded 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 bro∣ken, and that not with an uniform fracture but different in every one. Which Argu∣ment is not to be slighted, for that it shew•• or proves, that there was no vegetation i•• the case; because in all other figured Fos¦sils 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 bro∣ken off from the Jaws of the Animal in those volutations, and so in that manner mu∣tilated. 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 homo∣geneous 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 down∣wards, or toward the nether side, some in∣clining toward the left, others toward the right side: some serrate with small Teeth, others with great Indentures (which is ob∣served in the lesser triangular ones) some smooth without any Teeth, as the narrow pyramidal ones. All which things are ob∣served 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 * 1.1 Columna.

Fourthly, If these formed Stones be in∣deed original Productions of Nature, in imi∣tation 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 men∣tioned, who hath been most diligent in col∣lecting, and curious in observing these Bo∣dies 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 tro∣chites, &c. or do shoot into that form, after the manner of Salts and Fluors, as the Be∣lemnites 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 Prin∣ciples 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. Se∣condly, 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 Fi∣gure, as in natural Shells. Thirdly, Were these Bodies produced in the manner of sa∣line 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 va∣riety of Salts, or of their modifications and mixtures, than are likely to be found in Na∣ture; and the Curvilineous Concretions of Salts never, that I have yet seen, appearing in that regularity of Figure and due Cir∣cumscription, 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 Concre∣tions 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 hap∣pened, we should doubtless have heard of them, and the Observers would have im∣proved such an Experiment to the Production of the like Bodies at their pleasure. So I have finished what I have to alledge in de∣fence 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 Na∣ture, 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 recon∣cileable to Scripture, or indeed to sober Rea∣son: as,

First, That the Waters must have cove∣red 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 Conflu∣ence, 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 de∣nying, 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 ob∣served in broken Mountains. For one can∣not 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 be∣fore

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 ma∣ny Species of Shell-fish are lost out of the World, which Philosophers hitherto have been unwilling to admit, esteeming the de∣struction 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 Conse∣quence is proved in that, Among these pe∣trified 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 Ho∣noured Friend Dr. Lister proceeds further, and saith, That when he particularly exa∣mined 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 York∣shire, Wansford bridge in Northamptonshire, and about Gunthorp and Beauvoir-Castle, &c. any where else, but in their respective Quar∣ries. 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 ne∣ver 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 thick∣ness answerable.

To this I answer, That there are no pe∣trified Shells that do in bigness much ex∣ceed 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) extrava∣gantly broad at the mouth, and have not more than two other small turns at the most, whereas the turns of the Ophiomor∣phites 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 proto∣types, As Mr. Lloyd assures me he had ob∣served many in Museums. And the Learned and Ingenious Mr. Richard Waller then Se∣cretary 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, cove∣red in some places with a shelly Incrustation with the Diaphragms to be seen to the Cen∣ter 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 Argu∣ment that they have no relation to the com∣mon

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 re∣ceived from that very Ingenious and Inquisi∣tive Gentleman, happy in making natural Discoveries, Mr. William Cole of Bristoll such an Account of a sort or two of these Ophi∣omorphus 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. A∣mong others of this kind of Bodies which I have observed, I shall instance in one, which can be reduced to none but the Ophiomor∣phites, 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; be∣tween 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 Wea∣ther, 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 ano∣ther 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 cove∣red 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 im∣pressions as big as the Fore-wheel of a Cha∣riot, &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 co∣vered with Shells.

By what I have said concerning these Ophi∣omorphous 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 fil∣led the Cavities, and exactly of that kind which covered the out-side, being for the most part Whitish, or Mother of Pearl co∣loured. 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 re∣semble 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 dis∣appear.

In fine, these Ophiomorphous Stones do more puzzle and confound me, than any other of the formed Stones whatsoever, be∣cause 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,* 1.2 Because that even those Shells, which so exactly represent some sorts of Shell-fish, that there can be no ex∣ception upon the account of Figure, but that they might formerly have been Shells in∣deed, at some places are found only with one Shell, and not the other. Thus in Cow∣ley 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 Es∣callops, 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 Con∣chites 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 crystalli∣zation; 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 Opi∣nion.

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 ad∣mit, 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 acci∣dent be rub'd off the Rocks they stick to, or thrust off by Birds insinuating their Bills be∣tween 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, Con∣che Veneris, & Solenes, and almost all the

crustaceous kind, as Crabs and Lobsters, &c. as well have been brought up and left be∣hind by the Flood, and afterward petrified, as any of the testaceous kind? I answer, Of the great Buccina, Murices and Conchae Vene∣ris, 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 ga∣ther 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 con∣cerns the Selenites, Astroites and Belemnites we have answered already. That the Spe¦cies 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 im∣posed a Name upon them, calling them Mer∣mayds 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 there∣about being Allume-stone or Mine, wherein these Snake-stones lye; the Sea in Spring∣tides 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 up∣on 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 Concre∣tion been broken into infinite small pieces or fragments, scarce any remaining entire; which I do not see how any Floods or work∣ing of the Sea, could possibly effect.

So I have finished what I had to say con∣cerning 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 some∣thing 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 Wa∣ters rising up out of the subterraneous A∣byss, 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 pos∣sibly 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 di∣stances 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 acci∣dentally 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 gra∣tifie the Curious, by publishing a gene∣ral Catalogue of all the formed Stones found in England, and his Remarks upon them.

And I have likewise proved by good Au∣thority, that beyond the Seas, in high Moun∣tains, and many Leagues distant from the Sea too, there have been Beds of real Shells. I might have added Sharks-teeth or Glosse∣petrae, as both Goropius Becanus and Georgius Agricola testifie; if not in Beds, yet plentifully disperst in the Earth. There are several Me∣dical Histories extant (as Dr. Tancred Ro∣binson informs me) of perfect Shells found in Animal Bodies, in whose Glands they were originally formed, which is a conside∣rable Objection, not easily to be removed.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Dissert. De Glosso∣petra.
• * 1.2

  Hist. nat. Oxf. p. 117.