which they will betray. Every thing, therefore, is of importance, that brings them to them to the test of experience. Now it is remarked by Brongniart, that the order laid down by Werner is inverted in the case of the chalk. That substance is made the fifth of the floetz formation,and is placed above the highest floetz gypsum. Here, however, it appears far below it, with several formations between. The rule of Werner, therefore, does not hold in this instance; and it has been proved, that though the gypsum of Mont Martre agrees pretty nearly in its mineral characters with the newest gypsum formation of Werner, it differs entirely in its geological position. Again: the chalk described in this essay is not only covered by gypsum, but by limestone, and the gypsum by a second stratum of limestone and of sandstone, besides the siliceous millstone, all which is quite inconsistent with the Wernerian arrangement. All this shows how very imperfect that arrangement is, notwithstanding its pretended infallibility. If the limestone and gypsum of this series of rocks had been precisely the same with the second floetz limestone, and the second floetz gypsum, then there might have been a shadow of plausibility in the remarks just stated; but the preceding descriptions demonstrate that they differ most completely from these formations, not only in their erystognostic, but also in their geognostic relations. Brongniart, indeed, was so convinced of the truth of this, that far from viewing them as proofs of the fallacy of the geognosy, he describes both the limestone and gyp sum as new and distinct formations: the one he names coarse limestone, to distinguish it from the older

floetz limestones: the other be names the third floetz gypsum, to show that he considers it as different from the fibrous, or second floetz gypsum; and he places both above chalk. (Vid. Brong. Mine-, ralogie.) If Werner, had bad the folly and presumption to maintain that his system was complete, and that no other rock was to be discovered, that therefore he had fixed and ascertained the individual place of every stratum around the whole globe, he would have justly merited the severe and bitter censure of the reviewer of the essay of Cuvier and Brongniort.

"But the author of the remarks is not satisfied with this commentary on the system itself; in his zeal he ventures still further, and maintains that the disciples of the Wernerian school so cloud their descriptions of the mineralogy of countries with a barbarous and uncouth nomenclature, that we must turn from them in disgust. He says, The clearness with which this essay is written, and the absence of all technical language, except where it is absolutely necessary, we consider as great recommendations. The geologists of the Wernerian school follow a method directly opposite to this; they affect a phraseology peculiar to themselves, and employ a vocabulary, of which the harsh and uncouth terms, when closely examined, have not the precision to which every other consideration appears to be sacrificed. Descriptions drawn up in this way excite little interest, and render a branch of knowledge extremely inaccessible, which in its own nature is calculated to be very generally understood. The darkness which the language of Werner has thrown round all his doctrines seems as if

intended

intended to protect them from the eyes of the vulgar and uninitiated; and it may be doubted whether the Eleusinian rites threw a darker veil over the opinions of the Greek mystics, than the vocabulary of Freyberg does over the dogmas of the Saxon school. The consequence is, that of all the mineralogical descriptions which the Wernerian school has produced, we are persuaded none will be found so satisfactory as that which is now before us.' If this Wernerian nomenclature be so barbarous and unseemly, so totally unfit for the purposes of science, and so repulsive to good taste, how does it happen that Cuvier and Brongniart, so justly panegyrized by the reviewer, use it throughout the whole essay. The technical words that occur in it are but few in number, because the series of rocks consists of but few separate species, and they do not include many simple minerals. The following are the rocks and minerals mentioned in the treatise: chalk, limestone, marl, gypsum, clay, sand, sandstone, millstone, menelite, hornstone, flint, jasper, and silinite. Now this nomenclature is precisely the same as that used by the Wernerian school. Even the reviewer himself, in spite of his antipathy to every thing Wernerian, is forced to use the same nomenclature; for he speaks of transition rocks, greenstone, &c. &c.; terms which he formerly considered as barbarous in the extreme, and worthy the school where they originated. But not only is the nomenclature for rocks and simple minerals used in this essay the same as that employed by Werner, but the authors also invariably employ his geognostic phrase ology; thus the word formation is used throughout in the Wernerian

signification, and the fundamental rock or bason of the district is described according to the method of the geognosy. Even the order followed in the description of the formations is that of the Wernerian school, beginning with the oldest, and finishing with the newest; and the difficulties that occur in the investigation are resolved by an appeal to the rules and method of the geognosy. The very map which is attached to the essay is executed according to the plan of Werner; and its title shows that Cuvier and Brongniart do not consider the nomenclature as barbarous, for it is entitled a geognostic, not a geological map.

"If then this essay be so pure in its nomenclature, and perfect in its descriptions; and if it owes this to the language used, and the method of investigation pursued; it follows that the Wernerian nomenclature, and mode of investigation, although contrary to the intention of the author of the remarks, is proved to be the best, and that which must be employed if our mineralogical investigations shall attract any notice from philosophers, or regard from those interested in the mineralogical surveys of countries.

"Lastly, the author of these remarks touches on a subject of high importance in geognostical inquiries; it is the study of the natural history of shells, as an accessory branch of geognosy. I cordially agree with him in opinion that conchology is a branch of natural history which cannot be sufficiently recommended to the attention of all geognosts, as furnishing important means of ascertaining with accuracy many of the leading facts in the history of the globe. It is a branch of natural history which has been long studied

in Germany and France, and bas of late years, particularly since its importance in geoguosy has been ascertained and pointed out, made great advances. But we naturally inquire, to whom are we indebted for our present highly interesting views of the natural history of fossil organic remains in general? It is to Werner. More than thirty years ago he first embodied all that was known of petrifactions into a regular system. He insisted on the necessity of every geognostical cabinet containing also an extensive collection not only of shells, but also of the various productions of the class zoophyta, of plants, particularly of sea and marsh plants, and ferns; and an examination of the remains of quadrupeds in the great limestone caves in Germany, soon pointed out to him the necessity of attaching to the geognostical cabinet also one of comparative osteology. As his views in geognosy enlarged, he saw more and more the value of a close and deep study of petrifactions. He first made the highly important observation that different formations can be discriminated by the petrifactions they contain. It was during the course of his geognostical investigations that he ascertained the general distribution of organic remains in the crust of the earth. He found that petrifactions appear first in transition rocks. These are but few in number, and of animals of the zoophytic or testaceous kinds. In the older floetz rocks they are of more perfect animals; and in the newest floetz and alluvial rocks, of birds and quadrupeds, or animals of the most perfect kinds. He also found that the oldest vegetable petrifactions were of marine plants, the newer of large trees. A careful study of the genera and species of

petrifactions disclosed to him another important fact, viz. that the petrifactions contained in the oldest rocks are very different from any of the genera or species of the present time: that the newer the formation the more do the remains approach in form to the organic beings of the present creation, and that in the very new. est formations fossil remains of the present existing species occur. He also ascertained that the petrifactions in the oldest rocks were much more mineralized than the petrifactions in the newer rocks, and that in the newest rocks they were merely bleached or calcined. He found that some species of petrifactions were confined to particular beds, others were distributed throughout whole formations, and others seemed to occur in several different formations; the original species found in these formations appearing to have been so constituted as to live through a variety of changes which had destroyed thousands of other species, which we find confined to particular beds. He ascertained the existence of fresh water`shells in solid strata, some. times alone, sometimes intermixed with marine productions. These highly interesting observations having become generally known by means of his pupils, gave a stimu lus to the study of petrifactions, which in a few years produced important results. They attracted the particular attention of the mineralogist, and roused the curiosity of the zoologist, and botanist. They saw before them a wide field of the most interesting nature. The mineralo gist confidently anticipated from this study important elucidations in regard to the various changes the earth has undergone, during the progress of its formation from the

earliest

earliest periods to the present time. The zoologist and botanist, by the discovery of new genera and species, hoped to increase the number of natural families, to fill up gaps in the present systems, and thus to perfect more and more the natural system of animals and plants. But this was not all. The philosophic naturalist soon saw that these investigations would also to lead to much curious information in regard to the former physical and geographical distribution of plants and animals,

to the changes which the animated world in general, and particular genera and species, have undergone, and probably are still undergoing; and he would naturally be led to speculate on the changes that must have taken place in the climate of the globe during the various changes and revolutions. The writings of Blumenbach, Von Hoff, Cuvier, Brongniart, Steffens,, and other naturalists, are proofs of what has been done by following up the views of Werner."

POETRY.