fined by John Gesner in his work on fossils in 1758, and was afterward extensively used. Paleontology is comparatively a modern term, having only come into use only within the last half century. It was introduced about 1830, and soon was generally adopted in France and England; but in Germany it met with less favor, though used to some extent.
It would be interesting, too, did time permit, to trace the various opinions and superstitions held at different times in regard to some of the more common fossils, for example the Ammonite or the Belemnite—of their supposed celestial origin; of their use as medicine by the ancients, and in the East to-day; of their marvelous power as charms among the Romans, and still among the American Indians. It would be instructive, also, to compare the various views expressed by students in science concerning some of the stranger extinct forms—for instance, the Nummulites, among Protozoa; the Rudistes, among Mollusks; or the Mosasaurus, among reptiles. Dissimilar as such views were, they indicate in many cases gropings after truth—natural steps in the increase of knowledge.
The third period in the history of paleontology, which, as I have said, began with Cuvier and Lamarck at the beginning of the present century, forms a natural epoch extending through six decades. The definite characteristics of this period, as stated, were dominant during all this time, and the progress of paleontology was commensurate with that of intelligence and culture.
For the first half of this period, the marvelous discoveries in the Paris Basin excited astonishment and absorbed attention; but the real significance and value of the facts made known by Cuvier, Lamarck, and William Smith were not appreciated. There was still a strong tendency to regard fossils merely as interesting objects of natural history, as in the previous period, and not as the key to profounder problems in the earth's history. Many prominent geologists were still endeavoring to identify formations in different countries by their mineral characters rather than by the fossils imbedded in them. Such names as "Old Red Sandstone" and "New Red Sandstone" were given in accordance with this opinion. Humboldt, for example, attempted to compare the formations of South America and Europe by their mineral features, and doubted the value of fossils for this purpose. In 1823 he wrote as follows: "Are we justified in concluding that all formations are characterized by particular species? that the fossil shells of the chalk, the muschelkalk, the Jura limestone, and the Alpine limestones are all different? I think this would be pushing the induction much too far."[1] Jameson still thought minerals more important than fossils for characterizing formations; while Bakewell, later yet, defines paleontology as comprising "fossil zoölogy and fossil
- ↑ "Essai Géognostique sur le Gisement des Roches," p. 41.
