Geology  and  Paleontology
of  the
Lee  Creek  Mine,  North  Carolina,  III
Prodromus
Clayton  E.  Ray
Prodromu p sar..e.limina pryublicati oinnrtroducto wryork.
Webster ’Tshi rNdew
Internation aDlictionar 1y9, 64
The archaic title is intended to reflect the antiquarian nature onomic index to the publications of Remington Kellogg, pre¬
of this paper and to emphasize my conviction that our work on dominant loy nmammals.
the Lee Creek Mine project ,a quarter century of effort by many This prefatory note continues the historical theme of those
people, is decidedly preliminary. Publication began with vol¬ introducing volumes I and II, in which I attempted to review
ume I (Ray, 1983), which included papers on Remington the early history of paleontologica ldiscovery and publication
Kellogg (to whom the series is dedicated), on the Lee Creek on the middle Atlantic Coastal Plain of British America. Hav¬
phosphate mine itself, and on stratigraphy and correlation, ing flattered mysel ftha t Ihad unearthed essentially everything,
plants ,and microfossils .The only paper specifically devoted to it is salutary to be reminded through severa loversights that in
vertebrate fossils was that on otoliths of bony fish, included antiquarian, as in paleontological, research one can never do
therein as “microfossils.” That was primarily an unsuccessful too much digging. Returns in each are apt to be unpredictable
effort to see the paper in print before the death of its senior au¬ and to be meager in relation to time invested (hardly “cost ef¬
thor, John Fitch, who was then terminally ill. Volume II (Ray, fective”) ,but there wil lalways be something new ,and ,to com¬
1987) was devoted exclusively to mollusks ,the most conspicu¬ prehend it when found, one must be steeped in the subject.
ously abundant and well-preserved fossils in the mine .Initially, Thus, my primary objective is to rescue from obscurity or
it was planned that all vertebrate fossils, other than otoliths, oblivion the additional early history that I have learned; not
would  be  included  in  a  third,  concluding  volume  (Ray, only to give credit to the pioneers, but to add to the foundation
1983:3) ;however s, ubsequen tproductive collecting e, specially that may enable and inspire others to find out more ,especially
that by able and devoted amateurs ,has resulted in great accu¬ about American fossils surviving in European collections ,and
mulation of more and better fossils .These have been subjected to dig further into the early literature .Thus ,the present paper is
to thorough research by the contributors and, combined, ex¬ an extension of those introducing volumes I and II and should
pand the vertebrate papers beyond the reasonable confines o fa be used in conjunction with them, as I have tried to avoid un¬
single volume .The papers divide themselves conveniently into due repetition o ftex tand literature cited.
two sets, all groups other than mammals in this, volume III, to Although a full explication is beyond my scope herein and
be followed by mammals, volume IV, which will include a tax- beyond my competence anywhere, I hope in reviewing these
records to give some inkling of their importance, not only in
the development of paleontology ,but also in the broader intel¬
Clayton E .Ray ,Departmen to fPaleobiology ,Nationa lMuseum of lectual concerns of the times. Fossils were more prominent in
Natura Hl istory S, mithsonia nInstitution W, ashington D, .C 2. 0560- genera lscholarly discussion so fthe seventeenth and eighteenth
0121. centuries than at any time since .Although debate as to their na-
1
2 SMITHSONIA CNONTRIBUTION T SPOALEOBIOLOGY
ture and significance has long since dropped from the forefront probably was influenced by Aldrovand iin forming his museum
of general investigation, we have by no means won the day. In (Schepelem ,1990:82) ;Aldrovandi’s pioneering catalogs o fhis
western culture many educated people ,including scientists ,ei¬ collection were emulated and cited frequently in much later
ther ignore fossils or reject them as evidence of organic evolu¬ catalogs  in  England  (Grew,  1681;  Sloane,  see  Thackray,
tion, and humankind as a whole knows nothing of fossils 1994:125); and John Ray visited and was much impressed by
(Mclver ,1992; Lemonick ,1996). Aldrovandi’s collection (Torrens ,1985:206) .Steno s work was
No paleontologist can claim to be literate without thorough immediately translated into English by Oldenburg ,and it be¬
attention ,not merely a perfunctory bow ,to the role of fossils in came the subject of great interest in the Royal Society (Eyles,
western thought .Neglect of history is inexcusable in a histori¬ 1958 ;Stokes ,1969:16) .(Hooke accused Oldenburg and Steno
ca lscience such as paleontology ,but its literature in English is of conspiring to plagiarize his ideas (Oldroyd, 1989:217);
very skimpy ,and that written by practicing paleontologists is Drake (1996:116-117) ,especially ,supported Hooke’s claims,
generally narrow and shallow (although not universally so; and ,more importantly ,documented hi swidely undersung con¬
e.g. ,see Ward ,1990) ,much devoted to “correcting” past mis¬ tributions.)
takes and concepts in the light of present knowledge and fads. It has been suggested (e.g. ,Rudwick ,1976:39—41 ;Torrens,
Of course we are obligated to correct objective errors in striv¬ 1985:207) that recognition of fossils as remains of once-living
ing to approach truth ever more closely ,but this is less and less organisms occurred in Italy before it did in northern Europe
specifically usefu las we delve deeper into the ontogeny of our and England because the Italian fossils were “easy,” being geo¬
science .Much more satisfying is to understand the thoughts on logically young, little altered, and close to the sea and to living
fossils in the context and constraints of the times and the rele¬ relatives, whereas those elsewhere were much older, in de¬
vance o fthose thoughts to subsequen tdevelopments .The best formed inland rocks ,and the mos tconspicuous fossils were not
primers on this subject in English are Rudwick (1976), espe¬ closely related to living forms .Unfortunately ,these factors can
cially the first 100 pages, and Drake (1996), the latter focused at best only partially explain away the Italian preeminence.
on Robert Hooke but with uncommon explication of context. Surely at least as important was the existence of an affluent so¬
Also very instructive are Challinor (1953), Morello (1979, ciety ,with concomitan tcultura lsophistication ,ready to under¬
1981), and Young (1992). Davidson (2000:333) outlined the write research and to accept truth through logica largument.
otherwise neglected role o fRichard Verstegan in the early sev¬ Gould (1997) presented a convenient and timely analysis of
enteenth century; however ,she is mistaken in attributing the Leonardo’s brilliant and prescient insights on fossils ,wel lfixed
first published illustration, in 1605, of a shark’s tooth to him. in the context of time and place .Both geologic and human his¬
That distinction almost certainly belongs to Gesner (see Rud¬ tory preadapted Italy as the scene o fthese breakthroughs ,and
wick, 1976:30, fig. 1.9), who in 1558 even included a modem just as they were interwoven with a rich tapestry of culture ,art,
comparative  specimen  alongside  his  fossil.  Davidson learning ,and patronage ,so also was the interrelated develop¬
(2000:343) cited Gesner’s work as probably available to Ver¬ ment of natura lhistory collections .The literature in English re¬
stegan but mentioned neither Gesner’s figure nor the work of veals little comprehension o fthe fac ttha tnatura lhistory muse¬
Kentmann of 1565 in Gesner (see Rudwick, 1976:11-17). ums developed (and survived in some cases) in continental
These and other sources cited herein provide essentia lback¬ Europe ,especially in Italy ,in some semblance of modem form,
ground on the principa lplayers in the founding of paleontolo¬ a century earlier than in the English-speaking world. It seems
gy, including, among others, da Vinci, Colonna, Scilla, Steno, altogether too revealing that in 1995 I found the pages uncut in
and Hooke ,and those in the interrelated developmen to fcollec¬ the Smithsonian Institution Library copy of MacGillivray’s
tions, including Aldrovandi, Cospi, Giganti, Kircher, Mercati, (1838) life of Aldrovandi. This neglect has been partially cor¬
Worm ,and others .I refer to their work and its broader implica¬ rected in some excellent recent publications ,including Impey
tions only in the course of resurrecting the primary reports on and MacGregor (1985) and Findlen (1994). Ethnological and
American fossils .These allusions should be sufficient to show zoological objects from the Latin New World (then including
tha tthese reports are no tmere curiosities o fantiquarian delight Florida) have been wel ldocumented in these early collections
but were integra lto cutting-edge (see Maienschein ,1994 ,re¬ (e.g., see Heikamp, 1976:458; Laurencich-Minelli, 1985), but
garding thi strend yterm )intellectua cl oncerns. to my knowledge no fossils have as yet been recognized. Nev¬
Although there is no universa lagreement as to what or when ertheless ,the search for the beginnings of paleontology of the
the Renaissance was, few would disagree that it was earlier, New World should begin in sixteenth century Italy ,through di¬
stronger ,wider ,and deeper in Italy than it was anywhere else. rect examination of collections by appropriate specialists .The
It is no accident that Italian names, notably those mentioned best hope might wel lbe the collections of the great Ulisse (La¬
above ,dominate the earlies tstages in the history o fpaleontolo¬ tinized as Ulyssis) Aldrovandi (1522-1605), who was known
gy and museums ,and that Italian influence extended strongly to have had a strong interest in the New World (Heikamp,
into northern Europe and the British Isles. 1976:458; Laurencich-Minelli and Serra, 1988). His catalogs,
For example, Steno, or Niels Stensen, was a Danish cleric, largely compiled during his lifetime but published posthu¬
but his scientific career was mostly Italian in locale ,patronage, mously (Ambrosinus ,1648 ;Figure 1) ,remained a powerfu lin¬
and material (Scherz, 1969, 1971); Olaus Worm, also Danish, fluence long afterward in England (see above).
NUMB E9R0
cum
/  J  Fourf  l  ///< OFFS
h'.BF.omi tpmw
FIGUR 1E.—Tit lpeag (emuc hreduced o )Afldrovandi ’1s64 m8 onument aclatalo go hf ims useum  Iw.t a csom¬
pile dan dwa ws idel yknow ndurin gh ilsifetim e(1522-1605 b)u wt a psublishe db yAmbrosinu ms or etha n40
yea arsft eArldrovand id’sea t(hFindle 1n9, 94:25).
4 SMITHSONIA CNONTRIBUTION T SPOALEOBIOLOGY
Some Early Records gian tpecten C, hesapecten jeffersonius d, escribed and illustrat¬
ed by Lister, the first fossil so far known of any kind from the
This brings me to the first instances to be added to early re¬ New World to be described and illustrated ,probably had been
ports of fossils from the Atlantic coast of North America. As collected by John Banister and sent directly to Lister, Petiver,
early as 1669 an allusion was made to natural history speci¬ or Sloane (see Ray, 1987:2), but now the Royal Society’s Re¬
mens from Virginia in a collection ,long since forgotten and ir¬ pository seems at least as likely. Not only was Lister’s speci¬
retrievably lost, maintained by the East India Company at its men “half a foot over,” but also Lister (1639-1712) and Grew
headquarters in London (Hunter ,1985:162). The first explicit (1641-1712) coincided in their activities in the Society (Hunt¬
record to be added is that by Nehemiah Grew, who in 1681 er, 1994:188-189), and Lister is known to have used other
published by subscription under auspices of the Roya lSociety specimen sfrom th erepository.
a catalog of its collections, the title page of which is repro¬ The history of the repository is of great interest, not only in
duced herein (Figure 2; see Hunter, 1989, especially p. 142 et attempting to locate a potentia lhistorica ltreasure such as the
sqq., for genesis and nature of the catalog; see LeFanu, 1990, giant pecten but also for its cautionary lessons to museologists
for Grew’s life and contributions; see Clark, 1992, for an au¬ in general. Early impetus to the establishment and support of
thoritative guide to histories of the society ,its periodica lpubli¬ the collection came from the need for a substantive rallying
cations ,and indices thereto) .Included are two entries for fos¬ point for the struggling Royal Society and for a source of pub¬
sils specifically stated to have come from the New World. lic prestige (Hunter, 1985, 1989:127, 128). Explicit and strik¬
 Asor ot Mf USCULITE Sfill’ dwit hEart hlik eTobacco-Pip eCla yo rMarie. ingly modem statements o fthe purposes o fnatura lhistory col¬
Foun damongs th e art ho  afHi ltlha wt a soverturn’ da Kt eneban ki nNew lections were made by Grew (1681, preface), who advocated
Engla n(Gdr. e1w68, 1:264) collections as an inventory of nature and as documentation of
A grea pt etrify’ dSCALLOP F. igur’ db yAmbrosinu s b(w) it hth eNam eof the ordinary, and by Hooke (1635-1703), who also took an ac¬
Hippopectinites G. ive nwit hsevera ml or eo tfh esam ebigness b,  yMr._ tive and at times officia lrole in connection with the collections
Wicks ’.Ti shal f afoo tover M. an yo fth esam ekind wer etaken ou to f agreat
Roc ki nVirginia f,ort ymile sfrom Se ao Rr ive r(.Grew 1,681:262) (see especially Hunter, 1989:125, 127, 139-141), and whose
pioneering studies o ffossi lcephalopods stimulated his follow¬
  Ab)(ldro vM. u sM. eta l(l.Grew 1,681:26 2m, argin aclitation) ing statements (1705:338 ;also in Drake ,1996:236-237):
The first of these undoubtedly was a musse lshell ,common
in the late Pleistocene marine clays o fthe Presumpsco tForma¬ An dindee d iit sno ot nl yi nth edescriptio no tfhi sSpecie so Sf hell san dFishes,
tion of coastal Maine, including the vicinity of Kennebunk tha vater gyrea Dt efe co tIrmperfectio nma by feoun damon gNatur aHl istori¬an sb, u it nth eDescriptio no mf os ot the trhings s; otha wt ithou itnspectio nof
(Stuiver and Borns, 1975; Thompson, 1982:212, 226). John th ething tshemselve saM, a n ibsu avter ylittl ewiser..  .Iw.t er etherefor emuch
Winthrop, Jr. (1606-1676), an original fellow and major con¬ t ob ewish fto arn dindeavoure dtha tther emigh bt emad ean dkep i tnsom eRe¬
tributor  to  the  society’s  repository  (Lyons,  1944:50,  64; positor ya sfu laln dcomplea  atCollectio no af lvlarietie so Nf atura Bl odie sas
Steams ,1951:196,212 ,246 ,1970:117-139) ,undoubtedly was coul db eobtained w, her ea nInquire mr igh bt eabl et ohav erecours ew, her ehe
the source of the specimen in question .In letters of 11 October migh pt eruse a,n dtur nove ra,n dspel la,n drea dth eBoo ko Nf ature a,n dob¬ser vteh Oerthograph Eyt,ymolog iSay, ntax aisn Pdrosod  oiNafature G’sram¬
1670 ,printed in part in Birch (1756(2):473—474) and quoted in mar a, n db ywhich a, swit h aDictionary h,  emigh rteadil ytum t oan dfin dthe
part by Steams (1970:137) ,he alluded to “smal lshells” among tru Feigur eC,ompositio nD,erivatio ann Uds  otehf Ceharacter Ws, ord Ps,hras¬
the objects sent from a “hill near Kennebeck, Me, that turned e asn dSentence o sNf atur we ritte nwit hindelibl ea,n dmo setxac ta,n dmo setx¬
over in summer last (June or July) into the River.” The mysteri¬ pressiv eLetter sw, ithou wt hic hBook  iswt  ibll ever dyifficu ltt ob ethoroughly
ous “blowing-up” of the hill was reported also by John Josse-  aLiteratu si nth eLanguag ean dSens eo Nf ature T.h eus eo sfuc h aCollectioni sno fto rDivertisemen ta, n dWonder a, n dGazing a, s’ti sfo rth emos pt art
lyn (1674:210; see also White ,1956:180). though atn edsteeme da,n ldik Peicture fso Crhildre nt aodmir aen bd peleased
The second entry is potentially of much greater interest .The with b, u fto trh emos steriou san d iligen sttud yo tfh emos atbl eProficien itn
margina lbibliographic citation is to Aldrovandi’s monumental, Natura Pl hilosophy A. n dupo nthi soccasio ntho  i’bt  e adigression cI,ould
classic illustrated catalog (Ambrosinus ,1648) ,which Grew cit¬ hearti lwy is htha aCt ollectio nwer emad ei nth iRsepositor oy af ms an vyariet¬
ed repeatedly ,in this case alluding to a giant pecten illustrated ie sa scoul db eproduce do tfhes ekind so Ffossile-Shel lsan dPetrifactions,whic hwoul db en over ydifficu lmt atte tr ob edon e iaf nyon emad e iht i scare.
on page 832 of volume 4. This raised the intriguing possibility
that Aldrovandi’s specimen might conceivably be a previously Despite these and othe rresounding statements within the so¬
unsuspected and much earlier example from the New World. ciety ,the reality (dictated largely by its dilettante membership)
Unfortunately ,my limited investigation to date has revealed no was that its collection continued to be much like that of a pri¬
positive evidence that the giant pecten or any of Aldrovandi’s vate cabinet of curiosities—devoted to the rare and bizarre
fossils came from America ;rather ,Grew’s allusion seems to be rather than being a microcosm of what exists ,ordinary as well
onl yan obsolete b, roadl yconceived synonymy u, nderstandable as extraordinary (Hunter ,1989:150) .This tension has yet to be
for the time .The specimen has not been found among surviv¬ resolved in museums, although the “inventory of nature”
ing collections in Bologna, but it is thought to have come from movement seems to be gaining ascendancy at last .Further ,the
the vicinity of the city (Sarti, in litt., 1993). society found that although establishing a museum is easy,
Returning to Grew’s specimens from Virginia, I had previ¬ maintaining it in the long term (“perpetuity”) is almost impos¬
ously been inclined to accept the argument that the specimen of sible .From the beginning ,much of the society’s attention was
MVS&ZJM  RECALIS  SOCIETATIS.
ORA
Catalogue  6  c  Defcription
Of  the  Natural  and  Artificial
RARITIES
Belonging  to  the
ROYAL  SOCIETY
And  preferved  at
Greflram  Colledge.
MADE
By  C\[ehemjah  (jrew  M.  D.  Fellow  of  the  Royal  Society  9
and  of  the  Colledge  of  Fhyfitiam.
W  hereunto  is  Subjoyned  the
Comparative  Anatomy
OF
^tomatljs  antt  <@ut&
"By  the  fame  <$_A  VT  HO  R.
LO&CJDON,
Printed  by  W.  T^awlins,  for  the  Author,  1681.
FIGUR E2.— Titl epag e(reduced o) Gf rew s168 1catalo go tfh erepositor yo tfh eRoya Slociety.
6 SMITHSONIA CNONTRIBUTION T SPOALEOBIOLOGY
usurped by monetary problems ,including difficulty in collect¬ of the Civil War, Commonwealth, and Protectorate (inauspi¬
ing dues and shortfal lin funds to pay support staff. After years cious for the founding of anything “Royal”).
of vicissitudes in the care of its collections that entailed repeat¬ In John Aubrey’s (1626-1697) notes (dated 12 March 1689)
ed efforts at revitalization, and finally faced with a critical for his brief life of Walter Raleigh, in connection with Ra¬
problem in space to house the collection ,the society offered its leigh’s role in introducing tobacco to England, he states
collections  to  the  British  Museum  in  1779  (Hunter, (Aubrey ,1898(2) :181-182),
1989:153-155), which accepted in 1781 (Lyons, 1944:21 1).
Now ,a mere two centuries later ,the heir to that collection ,The M r[.Michae lW] eekes r,egiste  3ro tfh eRoya Slociet yan da noffice or tfh ecus-tome-house d,oe asssur em etha tth ecustome os tfobacc ove ar Ellnglan dis
Natura lHistory Museum (BMNH) ,London ,the Gibralter of its fo huur ndr ethdousa npdoun dp asenrnum.
kind ,itself faces an uncertain future (e.g. ,see Nature ,1990) ,as
do its counterparts elsewhere (Trescott ,1996 ;Butler ,1997).  Saubs ft o.‘crlerk.’
In any case, the “several” giant pecten(s) from Virginia There can be no doubt that Weekes and Michae lWicks are one
should have gone in 1781 to the British Museum. Although it and the same person. In response to my queries regarding
seems unlikely that such large ,conspicuous shells would have Wicks, Mary Sampson (pers. comm., 1993), archivist to the
been lost, sold, or destroyed, even in the vandalous “crema¬ Royal Society, found only one written communication by
tions” of curator Shaw (Steam, 1981:17), they have not as yet Wicks in the society’s unpublished Classified Papers series
been recognized in the existing collections of BMNH (Nuttall, (CL. P. XXIV.56), a brief undated note of some 13 lines, ad¬
in litt. ,1993). dressed to Henry Oldenburg (his boss). I have been unable to
The specimens in al lprobability represent Chesapecten jef- decipher the handwritten note entirely, but the gist of it is that
fersonius (see Ray, 1987), since 1993 the official fossil of the he put out some papers for Oldenburg stating, “I am sorry I
Commonwealth of Virginia (Anonymous, 1993) and thus of could not wait upon you sooner, my business at Custome
grea thistoric and curren tinteres ti ffound.
This leaves only the matter of the donor, “Mr._Wicks,” House being much more than ordinary.”In 1993 ,Gillian Hughes ,an independent researcher ,under¬
who turns out to be a subject of specific and genera linterest in took on my behalf a preliminary search in the Public Record
spite of the paucity of information about him. The person in Office for evidence of Michael Wicks in the Customs Estab¬
question undoubtedly is Michae lWicks ,clerk of the Roya lSo¬
ciety for at least 20 years (Thomson, 1812:15, lists his years in lishment. The earliest certain indication found by her lists
office as 23), from the first meeting of the council on 13 May Michael Wicks as Receiver for the Plantations among officers
1663 (Birch, 1756(1):236) at least until 27 November 1683, of his majesty’s customes for 1673 and 1675 (PRO 30/32/15
when it was resolved that “Mr. Cramer be clerk to the society and 17), and his name was last seen in those lists for 1693
in Wicks’s place” and that “Mr. Wicks be told, that his atten¬ (PRO, CUST 18/28). In the published Calendar of Treasury
dance is of no farther use” (Birch, 1757(4):229). This resolu¬ Books (Shaw, 1935:584), allusion is made under the date 17
tion seems however not to have had the finality that it implied, April 1694 to “Mich. Wicks, late Receiver of the Plantation
as Mr. Wicks was given orders at the meeting of 2 April 1684, Duties  and  of  the  new  impositions  on  tobacco  and
and the treasurer was ordered on 14 January 1685 to pay him sugar... lately discharged from that service.” The Calendar of
“fifteen  pounds  for  a  year  and  a  half’s  salary”  (Birch, Treasury Papers (Redington ,1868:338) indicates “confusion
1757(4):277 ,355) .Robinson (1946:194-195) gave a summary in the accounts of Mr. Wicks,” and the Commissioners of Cus¬
of Wicks’ employment by the society, indicating that the last toms “describe their perplexities abou this accounts ,and tha tto
mention of him is that of 13 November 1695, when a gratuity preven tfurthe renlargemen tthey had dispensed with his atten¬
was voted him by the Council; however, Hunter (1994:235) dance at the Custom House_Dated 5 Jan. 1693 [now 1694].”
noted a substantia lpayment to him as late as 1696 .It should be Thus it seems clear that Michael Wicks (up to his dismissal
noted that Robinson refers to Wicks as “Weeks,” that he ap¬ under a cloud) was in an unusually favorable position for di¬
pears as “John Weeks” in Weld (1848:562), secondarily as rect ,frequent communication with merchant ships sailing to
“Weekes” in Hunter (1994:235), and is omitted altogether by and from British America. At the meeting of the Royal Society
Lyon (s1940:344). on 13 June 1683, “Mr. WICKS was desired to procure from the
Apparently prior to Wicks ’appointment with the society ,Dr. East-India ships a quantity of the shining sand of St. Christo¬
Jonathan Goddard (1617-1675 ,professor a tGresham College) pher’s and James river in Virginia” (Birch, 1757(4):209). This
had employed “Mr. Mich. Weekes, who looked to his stills” reques twould hardly have been made had i tno tbeen anticipat¬
(Aubrey, 1898(1):268). In this case, the stills were for produc¬ ed tha tWicks could accommodate it.
tion of ingredients to various secret medicinal nostra. It is Interestingly, this is the only instance in the long employ¬
thought that Wicks got the job as clerk through Goddard’s in¬ ment of Wicks by the society in which he was “desired” to do
fluence (Robinson, 1946:194). This seems plausible in view of something ,rather than “ordered” or “directed.” This is proba¬
Goddard’s major role in the birth and early development of the bly not accidental, but reflects a momentary deference to his
society, from its unchartered gestation, beginning in 1645 position with the custom house .Otherwise ,paid subordinates
(Copeman, 1960; McKie, 1960), through the turbulent period were addressed in the imperative ,whereas the gentlemen Fel-
NUMB E9R0 7
lows were “requested” or “desired” to do something .Pumfrey ies, found them to be similar in detail, illustrated them accu¬
(1991:12-16; Drake, 1996:17-18, 104-105, not withstanding) rately in comparable orientations ,and concluded that they de¬
has made a persuasive case for this distinction in connection rived from identical or closely related organisms. One’s first
with his study of Robert Hooke’s precarious position betwixt impulse today might be to dismiss this approach as routine ,but
and between ,which may have contributed to Hooke’s appar¬ it was not such in the context of the time. Although spectacular
ently atypica legalitarian attitude toward subordinates (e.g. ,see examples o fbrillian tcomparative methodology are known here
Shapin, 1989:269), as well as to his prickly attitude toward the and there from the sixteenth century onward (note that Grew
establishment. used the approach and the term, “comparative anatomy,” in
It should be recognized that the society’s treatment of Wicks 1681, see Figure 2), the techniques were not codified and uni¬
was not crue land unusua lbut was in genera lcorrect for the so¬ versally applied until the nineteenth century under the influ¬
cial system of the time and place. Even allowing for the free¬ ence of Cuvier, Owen, and Agassiz. This could not have oc¬
wheeling attitude toward spelling in those days, it apparently curred prior to the Age of Enlightenment/Reason, with the
was not important to get his name right or even to include it spread of the notion that all problems could be successfully
consistently in society records ,nor perhaps was it important for solved through intensive inspection and tha tordinary humans
Grew to remember or later insert Wicks’s given name in the could rely on their own carefu lobservations irrespective of au¬
manuscrip tfo rthe society’ scatalog. thority. This approach was the cornerstone of the Royal Soci¬
The next explicit report of specimens from the Atlantic ety .Unti lrecently ,this reliance was taken for granted ,so much
Coastal Plain is that of Sloane (1697). He borrowed the speci¬ so that the sublime notion could be expressed profanely, if I
mens from his friend, Dr. Tancred Robinson, who had just re¬ may be permitted one homely example: Remington Kellogg,
ceived them from Maryland (most likely from the Rev. Hugh once asked by a colleague what criteria allowed him to con¬
Jones, who arrived there in 1696 and was accused by Wood¬ clude that a certain fragmentary whale vertebra was in fact
ward of sending specimens to “rogues and rascalls,” including identifiable to a particular species, immediately replied re¬
Sloane, Petiver, Lister, and Robinson (Stearns, 1952:292, soundingly, “because it looks like it, goddamit it!” He did not
306)). These specimens included at least three isolated tooth live to experience the postmodern entry o fdoub tintroduced by
plates of the ray Aetobatis, illustrated in Sloane’s figs. 7-12; it phylogenetic systematics and socia lconstructivism ,in which
is unclear from his text whether the articulated partial tooth we question the meaning o fal lour observations.
battery shown in his figs. 13 and 14 also is from Maryland (see Further ,Sloane’s (1697) note was written when the nature of
Figure 3). At least the fragmental plate shown in his figs. 7 and fossils as vestiges of once-living organisms had by no means
10 is among the very smal lnumber of the founder’s specimens been universally accepted by serious scholars .This topic brings
known to survive in BMNH, where it was featured in an exhi¬ us conveniently to the next known report and illustration of
bition on the history of paleontology (Edwards, 1931:61) and fossils from the Atlantic Coastal Plain ,that of a bone fragment
where it apparently is still to be found (Thackray, 1994:132). and a shark tooth by Scheuchzer (1708), whose title page and
Obviously Robinson must have allowed Sloane to retain at figures are reproduced herein (Figures 4-6). Both specimens
least one of the fossils. Some or all of the others may be pre¬ are preserved in the Paleontologica lMuseum of Zurich (Leu ,in
served in Woodward’s collection at Cambridge .In an appendix litt., 1997; see also Furrer and Lev, 1998:33).
to his primary catalog of English “extraneous” fossils (catalog Johann Jacob Scheuchzer (1672-1733), little familiar to the
B of Price, 1989:94), however, Woodward (1728-1729) listed English-speaking scientific community ,is known primarily as
modem specimens preserved for comparison to his fossils ,and an object of derision for his Homo diluvii testis faux pas, based
on page 111, under his entry number 25, a modem ray denti¬ on a fossil salamander (see Jahn, 1969, for this and for a good
tion, he expressly stated that his ray tooth plates sent by Jones thumbnail biography of Scheuchzer in English). Scheuchzer
from Maryland “were digg’d up ,together with those” reported was actually a very substantia lscientist who translated Wood¬
by Sloane (see catalog B of Price, 1989). ward into Latin and promoted his ideas (notably organic origin
Sir Hans Sloane (1650-1753) is best known as a prodigious of fossils) on the continent. Scheuchzer was in close contact
collector who provided the foundation for the collections of the with Sloane and other leading naturalists of the Roya lSociety.
British Museum and its offshoots. He also was a man of parts His historica lsignificance would unquestionably be better ap¬
who was a successful doctor of medicine, an olympian letter preciated had Jahn’s (1975) promised bio-bibliography of
writer, and a major force in the Royal Society, although he was Scheuchzer and translations o fhis majo rworks materialized.
not without his detractors ,most notably John Woodward (e.g., The  bone  fragment  from  Maryland  was  attributed  by
see MacGregor ,1994:19). Most have made light of his abilities Scheuchzer (1708:22) to the acetabular region of the innomi¬
as a thinker and researcher .Nevertheless ,his little paper on the nate bone of a mamma l(“Animalis”) ,not a farfetched supposi¬
fossil ray plates is an elegant example of modernity produced tion. This fragment ,however ,matches very well the portion of
before any pattern was established .He placed the isolated un¬ a smal lcetacean atlas vertebra that characteristically remains
knowns (considered by some to be bits of petrified mush¬ after the vertebra breaks at the weak points and rolls on the
rooms) alongside the most appropriate specimens of known beach; it is illustrated (Figure 5) alongside a typica lfloat speci¬
identity ,articulated and disarticulated modem ray tooth batter¬ men and a well-preserved atlas from the Miocene of Chesa-
SMITHSONIA CNONTRIBUTION T SPOALEOBIOLOGY
FIGUR E3 —. Plat eaccompanyin gSloane’ 1s69 7repor ot nfoss irla yteet hfrom Marylan d(xl )H.  ifsigure 1s-6
ar eo mf odem species f,igure s7-1 2ar eo ffoss islpecie sfrom Maryland a,n dfigure s13-1 4ar eo ffossil sfrom an
unkno wloncal iptyo,ssi bMlyaryland.
peake Bay in Maryland .This is probably the first cetacean (and Lhwyd (1660-1709) complained that Petiver and his pal Doo-
mammalian)  fossil  from  America  to  be  illustrated. dy got aboard ship and rifled collections from Jones intended
This  Maryland  specimen,  especially  if  received  by for him (Gunther ,1945:343,462) .Among specimens cataloged
Scheuchzer from Petiver, probably was sent by Hugh Jones. by Sloane that came to him in Petiver’s collection were “shark
NUMB E9R0 9
QUERELAE
ET
VINDICIAE
Expofitas
Johanne  Jacobo  Scheuchzero
Med.  D*  Acad.  Lcopoldin.  &  So-
cietatum  Regg.  Anglic#,  ac  Prut
ficae  Membro.
TIGURI.
Sumtibus  Authoris,  Typis  Geflnerianis,
—.  M  JO  C  C  ¥ML
FIGUR 4E.—Tit lpeag oe Sfcheuchzer ’1s70 c8lassi cP,iscium Querela e Vtindicia (e 1x).
teeth and other fossils sent from Maryland by the Revd Hugh his job as chaplain to the governor of Maryland through the ini¬
Jones” (Thackray, 1994:126). Jones communicated especially tial recommendation of Lhwyd, furthered by the Temple Cof¬
with Petiver and sent specimens from Maryland at least from fee House group that included Sloane, Petiver, Doody, Lister,
1696 to 1702, although he became ill in 1700. Jones had gotten and Robinson (Steams ,1952:292-294; Jessop ,1989).
10 SMITHSONIA CNONTRIBUTION T SPOALEOBIOLOGY
c
FIGUR 5E.—Cetacea antla vsertebra  iecnrani alspe c(tx0.82  a)S,,cheuchzer 'fsigur reeproduce d bs;.imilar
waterwor nfragmen tL,ophocetu sp p.,robab lcyollecte do nbeac hi nCalve rCtount yM, aryland U, SNM
44952 (5Nation aMl useu m oNfatur aHlistor yS,mithsonia Innstitutio nw,hic house csollection  otshf feormer
Unite Sdtate Ns ation aMl useum  )c;,omplet aetla sC.ov Peoin Ct,alve rCtount yM, arylan dS ,tM. ary Fsorma¬
tion c,ollecte db yFranc isMarkoe J,r .1,841 p, ar ot tfh eholotyp eo Lfophocetu csalvertens i(sHarlan )i,tse laf
histor iscpecime (nGilmor e1,941:311-31 23,7 7S;impso n1,942:16 21,76 ()S. ca lbear =clm.)
The second specimen ,an incomplete tooth of Carcharodon Scheuchzer’s inferred outline of his incomplete specimen is a
megalodon Agassiz from the Carolinas (Figure 6a), is de¬ very early example of paleontological restoration, however
scribed by Scheuchzer (1708:20) as lacking serrations .The ab¬ modest.
sence of serrations is of no taxonomic significance because the Jacob (or James) Petiver (71663-1718), identified as the do¬
tooth is clearly waterworn and is typical of the rolled speci¬ nor, was a London pharmacist and perhaps second only to
mens so abundant in the lower reaches of several rivers in Sloane as a natural history collector and letter writer (see
Sou tCharolina. Stearns, 1952, for the fullest account of Petiver). Of course,
Scheuchzer’s comparison was to Luid number 1259 ,a simi¬ Lhwyd and Woodward outdid Petiver in their geological col¬
larly waterworn specimen from the British Crag (Figure 6c). lection s(Torrens 1, 985).
The number refers to the collection of Edward Lhwyd, Lati¬ Petiver’s most productive correspondent in South Carolina
nized as Luid ,among the many variations of the surname (see was the Rev. Joseph Lord, who began sending him speci¬
Gunther, 1945:vii) (see Roberts, 1989, for a succinct biogra¬ mens in 1701 and continued at least until 1713 (Stearns,
phy) ,whose specimen survives in the geologica lcollections at 1952:346,  362).  Especially  relevant  may  be  Petiver’s
the  University  Museum,  Oxford  (Powell,  in  1  itt.,  1993). (1705:1960) account of two fossil shark teeth sent by Lord,
NUMB E9R0
a
b  c
FIGUR 6—E. Tee t ohCfarcharodo mn egalodo (nx0.82 aS),cheuchzer ’fsigu rreeproduce d bw;,ell-preserved
toot hs,howin sgerration sc,ollecte bd Py .HJ.armatu kfr,om Yorktow Fnormatio snpo iLl,e Ceree Mk in eN,orth
Carolina U, SNM 350941  c;w, aterwom specimen p, robabl yfrom th ebon ebe da th ebas eo tfh eRe dCrag S,uf¬
fol kE,nglan d(H.P P.owe li lnl,itt 1.,993 )L,hwy dcollectio numbe 1r25 9O, xfor dUniversit My useum p,hoto¬
grap hcourtes oy Of xfor dUniversit My useum o Nf atur aHl istor y(.Sca lbear c1=m.)
12 SMITHSONIA CNONTRIBUTION T SPOALEOBIOLOGY
the first of which could possibly be the very one illustrated uralists for the specimens. Woodward ,generally at odds with
b Sycheuchzer. mos to fhis contemporaries ,boasted tha t“Mr .Doody had given
Here may be mentioned wha tis probably the earlies tallusion him all or the greatest part of those fossils you [Jones] sent
to a fossil of a bony fish from the New World, other than Win- him” (Petiver to Jones, 10 March 1698; quoted in Frick et al.,
throp’s 1636 allusion to “Fishes’ bones” from the James River 1987:19 ;see also Steams ,1970:265).
(Ray, 1983:4). In a letter to Petiver from his home at Dorches¬ Of three catalog entries for Virginia specimens attributed to
ter (this would have been old Dorchester on the Ashley River), John Banister, two are explicitly stated to have been given by
South Carolina ,dated 1 September 1707 ,Lord writes: Doody ,clearly a continuing benefactor of Woodward. Banis¬
Herewit hcome  sasma lbl o xwit hdiver sFossils.. .I. n apar ot mf  ylan dwhere ter’s collecting could not have been later than 1692 ,the year of
som ewer ediggin gafte  arsor ot Mf arl.  .as. ton ewa sdigged s,omewha ftla &t his death (see Ewan and Ewan, 1970, for a definitive account
broad b, u tlooking like ye mar al mong which i tlay o, n which wa sye ta iol  fa  oBfanister).
sma lflish & y ebod ynea ra sfa ra sy eNave lo,  fabrown colour s, hewing fin s& All of the 20 North American entries (19 mollusks, 1 barna¬
scale sver yapparently b, u at lSl tone & ; isteeme ds odistinc tha hIt a d acon¬ cle) in Woodward’s additional list (catalog M of Price, 1989)
ce  imIt igh steparat e iftrom y eres ot yf eStone w, hic  heI ndeavoure dt on opur¬
pose b, u it ntryin gmuc hdeface dy eImpress & ;since o, nl ylyin gi nm yStudy pertain to what was probably a single locality near the James
mad e imt or eobscure b: u ht oweve hIrav epu  ititnt oy eBox. River, 20 miles (~32 km) above its mouth. One specimen was
found “by Lyons-Creek” (now Lawnes Creek, reverting to the
The letter was marked as received on 26 January 1708, as place names o fChristopher Lawne’s Plantation ,established in
was presumably the accompanying smal lbox .The origina llet¬ 1619), which empties into the James River just below Hog Is¬
ter is preserved among the Sloane manuscripts (Sloane 4064, land, opposite Williamsburg, some 20 miles (~32 km) up the
folio 150) in the British Library (permission to quote not re¬ James. All are attributed to a “Mr. Miller,” who is probably the
quired; Taylor, in litt., 25 April 1994) as a result of Sloane’s
having purchased Petiver’s papers and collections afte rthe lat¬ Mr. Miller described by Heame (Salter, 1915:148) as Wood¬
ter’s death (Steams ,1952:244 ;MacGregor ,1994:23) .The fos¬ ward’s “neighbor & particular Acquaintance for 30 years past,
si lfish should have been among the Sloane specimens that ini¬ who often went abroad with him to gather Fossils ,and assisted
tiated the British Museum, but if it survives in the BMNH, it him often in packing up boxes ,to be sent abroad to Professors
has not as yet been recognized (Thackray ,1994:132). & curious persons, & presented him himself with a Drawer or
In striking contrast to the loss or unknown fate of most North two from the Wes tIndies.”
American fossils from the colonial era is the survival of those With the possible exception of the Miller specimens from the
in the Scheuchzer collection and in the incomparable collection James River, all North American specimens in the Woodward
o fhis correspondent ,John Woodward (1665-1728) ,preserved collection were collected prior to 1700 .Judging from the iden¬
essentially intact, with data, at the University of Cambridge. tity of the collectors ,their time ,and Woodward’s annotations,
The essentia lbackground to this collection can be learned from it seems highly probable that some of the specimens may have
Woodward’s own catalogs (Woodward ,1728-1729) ,Gunther been studied or illustrated by Banister, Lister, Sloane, or con¬
(1937:424-433), and especially Price (1989). A measure of its temporaries .Price’s valuable studies ,cut short by his untimely
volume and significance can be gained from the catalog entries. death, were only just beginning to reveal the value of this
The North American fossils are contained in catalogs K and M unique resource, and it has not been feasible to examine the
of Price’s notation (1989:93-94; table 1). Of 655 catalog en¬ collection firsthand for the present project. Close study of the
tries for foreign fossils (only fossils in the modem sense, ex¬ specimens with relevant literature at hand could scarcely fai lto
cluding rocks and minerals) ,74 are North American ;these rep¬ yield interesting results .Some of the shark teeth have been ex¬
resent a minimum of 127 of the tota l1210 specimens .Thus ,the amined recently by Shelton P. Applegate of the Universidad
North American materia lconstitutes more than 10 percent of Naciona lAutonoma de Mexico.
both total catalog numbers and specimens. Of the 127 speci¬ The majority of the remaining entries for foreign fossils in
mens ,74 are invertebrates ,mostly mollusks ,and 53 are verte¬ Woodward’s catalogs (catalogs K and M of Price, 1989) are
brates, mostly sharks’ teeth. Of the 74 catalog entries, 51 are from  the  extremely  important  collections  of  Scilla  and
from Maryland and 23 are from Virginia .Among the Maryland Scheuchzer .Woodward appears to have been meticulous in cit¬
entries, at least 27 are attributed to William Vernon, 18 to ing their specimens ,but as yet none of his entries for them can
Hugh Jones ,and three to David Krieg ,the three most important be identified as pertaining to North American specimens .The
names in seventeenth-century natural history collecting in collection should ,o fcourse ,be searched for them.
Maryland .Although focused primarily on their botanica lcol¬ The next instance of early collecting that I wish to note is
lecting, the account of their activities in Maryland by Frick et from a letter to Peter Collinson from John Custis of Williams¬
al. (1987) is a convenient and authoritative source (see also burg, Virginia, believed to have been written on 28 August
Stearns, 1970:264-274). Jones, as previously noted, spanned 1737. In it Custis alludes to the extreme drought of that sum¬
the years 1696-1702 but was largely incapacitated for the last mer, which necessitated his digging a deep well to water his
two. Vernon and Krieg overlapped almost exactly in their brief garden .The letter is quoted in part from Swem (1957:47):
visits, during the spring and summer of 1698. There was keen A syou ar e aver ycuriou sgentleman sIend you som ething swhich tIook
interes tand competition ,in par tunfriendly ,among British nat¬ ou to fth ebottom o fA we l4l  0fee tdeep T; h eon eseem sto be e acockl epetre-
NUMB E9R0 13
fy don e abon epetrefyd [;this? s]eem st ohav ebee nth eunde rbea ko sfome Had those collections survived and become available for re¬
larg aentediluvia fnow Wl. is thhe my a bye aecceptable. search in Philadelphia, paleontology of the Atlantic Coastal
In a letter of 5 December 1737, Collinson thanked Custis for Plain might have been advanced by some decades .In the same
“the Curious Fossils that you sent Mee last year” (Swem, report Latrobe went on to discuss other geologic phenomena
1957:60); again, in a letter of 5 March 1741 (Swem, 1957:71), including delineation of the fal lline and its significance in rela¬
Collinson alludes to fossils sent by Custis as “shells that was tion to building stones. He was a practical man whose job at
found so Deep when you was Makeing the Mill Dam.” At least that time was “Surveyor of the Public buildings of the U.
some of these fossils were on exhibit at Mill Hill School, on the States,” (Latrobe ,1809:293) ,which makes his closing observa¬
site of Collinson’s home, near London, in the early 1930s, but tion (Latrobe ,1809:292) regarding the geologic problems dis¬
they have been lost sight of since (Swem, 1957:172; Hume, cussed al lthe more revealing:
1994:22) .Interestingly ,the 1964 archaeologica lreexcavation I it sfortunat etha th esolutio no tfhes eaenigma so nf atur ear eo nf  oconse¬
of Custis’ 40-foot (~12 m) well in Colonial Williamsburg, Vir¬ quenc we hateve t rou hrappines so ,o rufs te ou ernjoyments.—Bu tth pelea¬
ginia, yielded fossil shells and whale bones (Hume, 1994:20, sure o sifnvestigation a,n do wf onde rt,h oeffsprin go ifgnoranc ea,r neo wt ith¬
22). All of these specimens undoubtedly derive from the ou  atcharm w, hic hofte nentice sth emer especulativ ephilosophe rinto
Pliocen eYorktow nFormation. research eths partodu cresu lbtsenefic imtaolankind.
John Custis (1678-1749) ,educated in England ,was a promi¬ We continue to vacillate in the unresolved and unresolvable
nent citizen of Virginia and an avid horticulturist, which led to stress between applied and pure research .In the mos trecen tcy¬
his association with Peter Collinson (Swem ,1957:11-20). Col¬ cle, support for pure research probably reached a peak in the
linson (1694-1768) was a successfu lbusiness man with exten¬ expansive mood of prosperity during the 1960s ,when science
sive interests in the American colonies ,including a lifelong av¬ could save us. We may hope that the retrenchment of the
ocation to botany (Swem, 1957:1-9). He was singled out by 1990s, with its demand for quick returns and the rise of pseu¬
Stearns (1951:194-195) as one of the most active fellows of doscience, is the nadir of the curve and not the precipitous
the Roya lSociety in encouraging North American naturalists. slope of descent into continuing decay and rejection of science
He is perhaps best known in North America in connection with (see Sagan ,1995 ,especially chapters 14 ,23 ,and 25 ,and Gross
the vertebrate fossils of Big Bone Lick, Kentucky (Jillson, et al. ,1996 ,for timely ,accessible examinations of the problem;
1936; Simpson, 1943). Although Collinson was especially ac¬ see Maull, 1997, for an example of the widespread and disas¬
tive in adding to Sloane’s collection (Swem, 1957:3), no evi¬ trous confounding o fscience and scientists by socia lconstruc¬
dence has yet emerged to identify any fossils from Custis’ dig¬ tivists).
ging in Williamsburg in the surviving collections of BMNH.
Lastly ,although much later than the other reports cited here¬ Conclusions
in, I wish to supplement my earlier account (Ray, 1983:6-7) of
Latrobe’s 1799 report of vertebrate fossils from Richmond, Review of these additiona learly publications on fossils from
Virginia ,including sharks ’teeth ,fish vertebrae ,a large bird fe¬ the Atlantic Coasta lPlain leads to a few observations of seem¬
mur ,and a partia lporpoise flipper .Latrobe (1809:283-284) re¬ ingly wider relevance .These may be grouped conveniently for
turned to this subjec tas follows: presen tpurposes under the topics o f“Firsts” for North America
 Iwt a ms iyntentio nthen t ,ohav oeffere dt oth [eAmerica nPhilosophica lS]oci¬ and for paleontology and o f“Sharks ’Teeth.”
ety as,erie so gf eologica pl aper st,h ematerial so wf hic h1ha dcollected a,n dof Firsts. —Simpson (1942, 1943) was among the very few
whic hth ims emo i[rLatrob e1,799 w] a tsh efirs tB.u mt iyntentio nwa dselayed practicing vertebrate paleontologists in the modem era to have
an dpartl ydefeate db yth elos so  afver ylarg ecollectio no af ltlh eprincipa flos¬ looked seriously into the early history of the subject in North
sil sn,ecessar ty oelucidat em oybservation si n,the iprassag eb wy ate rf,rom America. Here, too, should be mentioned the historical re¬
Fredericksbu rtPgohiladelphia.—Th cios llectio in,tend ef odt hrAemerican
Philosophica Slociet yw, a ms ad eb tyh eindustr oy mf eyxcellen ftriend sM, r. search by Helen Ann Warren, under the aegis of Henry Fair-
William Maclur enow a Ptari so ,tfh elat eD rS.candell awhos euntime ldyeath field Osborn (in Osbom, 1931 :ix, 1-33), which was similar in
i n179 s8cienc aen dfriendshi pequal lhyav te odeplor ea,n do mf yself.— Icton¬ content and emphasis, if not in depth, to that of Simpson.
siste do sfpecimen os lfoos ean dundecaye dfoss silhell sf,oun do nan dnea trhe Simpson was more than casually involved with preparation of
surface f,rom th ecoas t oth efall so tfh eriver so Vf irginia o, tfh eshe lrlock sof the book (on Edward Drinker Cope) of which Warren’s work
Yor krive ro, tfh eclay swit himpression so sfhell si never yfracture b, u wt hich was part ,overlapped completely with her at the American Mu¬
she wn roemainin egvidenc  oeafn cyalcareou ms att ewrhe snubjecte  tdcohem¬
ica tlests o ;tfh exuvia eo sfe animals* b,one os ffishe ss,harks t’eeth m, arsh seum of Natural History (Osborn, 1931 :ix), and may have re¬
mud f,oss iwl oo dan dcora rlock d, u gfrom th edee pwell sabou Rt ichmond o, f lied too heavily on her spadework. Be that as it may, he
th emarle so Pf amunke yan dMattapony o, af ltlh estrat ao tfh ecoa ml ine son brough ttogethe ra grea tdea lo fscattered information and quite
James’ sriver o, fthe varietie so fthe granite o fVirginia o, fthe free stone of correctly contrasted casua lor inconsequen tearly finds (such as
James ’rsiv earn tdh Reappahanno cw,i tthh veegetab lpeetrefaction asn cdoal those by early Indians—interesting but not contributing to sci¬
belon gt oi ta; n do  afvariet yo mf iscellaneou sfossils.. .T. h elos so tfhi scollec¬
tio ndispirite dme a,n dth eoccupation os amf os ltabouriou psrofessio nde¬ ence) with those that were to become factors in the advance¬
prive md  oetfime. ment of knowledge in western culture. In his words ,“true dis¬
‘Drawing o ssfom oe tfh exuvia aeccompanie dm my emoi rt ,owhic hrefer.— covery [is] that leading by a traceable route ,however devious,
Th ebone os tfh efoo tther erepresented a,r eprobab ltyhos eo asfe atortoise.... to eventua lelucidation o fthe problems concerned” (Simpson,
14 SMITHSONIA CNONTRIBUTION T SPOALEOBIOLOGY
1942:135) ,and again ,“merely seeing a fossi lbone or picking it vertebrate paleontology and it may fairly be dated from
up in idle curiosity is hardly discovery....scientific discovery Daubenton....” Both Guettard’s and Daubenton’s contribu¬
was tha twhich initiated continuous consciousness and record tions stemmed from the 1739 Longueuil collection of mast¬
of the occurrence of fossil animals in America and had the first od orenmains.
scientific studies as its sequel” (Simpson ,1943:26-27). Both Sloane (1697) and Scheuchzer (1708) conspicuously
Although these definitions are meaningful, Simpson was antedate Guettard for the first description and illustration of
mistaken in every instance in applying them toward identifica¬ North American fossi lvertebrates .Sloane’s paper in particular
tion of firsts for North America ,thus making his papers not the meets every possible criterion: the fossils reported were col¬
definitive work that he supposed (Simpson, 1943:26). Taking lected through a purposive scientific program (about which
caution from his example ,I do not propose that my candidates more beyond) ;Sloane was among the most prominent natural
are in truth firsts, only that they are the earliest known to me historians of his or any other era; he published in the premier
(as indicated, I suspect, even hope, that there are still earlier scientific journal in English; his title alone reveals the signifi¬
ones ,especially Italian ,and thus I believe that the present ac¬ cance of his subject; the specimens are small, and at least one
count is not the last word) .It must be emphasized that Simpson survives today ;and the paper is a mode lof comparative meth¬
provides a large target only because he had the rare insight to odology.
see the value of history and the ability to draw so much togeth¬ The larger point to be emphasized is the nature of the natural
er from scratch. His well-earned stature and authority make history enterprise in western Europe in the late seventeenth and
doubly importan tthe correction o fhis objective errors .Further, early eighteenth centuries ,for present purposes especially in
those errors reflect what I believe to be a pervasive lack of England, and especially centered among fellows of the Royal
comprehension among American paleontologist so fth esophis¬ Society .Their sustained ,intensive ,extensive interest in North
ticated nature of natura lhistory investigations by western Eu¬ America is wel lrecognized and is woven into the modem liter¬
ropean sin the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. ature of zoology and especially of botany (Steams, 1970, and
Simpson (1942:131) defined six periods in the history of ver¬ Frick et al., 1987, are superb examples) but is reflected hardly
tebrate paleontology in America, the first two of which are of at al lin that of paleontology (among notable exceptions is Ger-
inter ehsetre. mon et al. ,1987) ,especially o fvertebrates.
1 P. re-scientif Pceriod —. From th earlies ttime ts oabou 1t762 T.h efirst There was nothing in the least casua lor chancy in the collec¬
foss diliscoverie ws er me ad eT.owar tdh en od tfh peerio bdone ws er ceollect¬ tion of North American fossils ;rather ,they resulted from a pur¬
e dan dsen tt oEurope N.  otrul yscientif isctud yo tfhem ha dbee nmade. posive campaign. In fact, it is a little surprising that the results
2 P. roto-scientifi cPeriod —. From abou t176 2t oabou t1799 I.n 1762 were so meager for fossils in light of the effort expended.
Daubento nrea dapape or nAmerica nfossi ltsreatin gthem fo trh efirs ttim ein Much of the voluminous correspondence of Sloane, Petiver,
wha dteserve ts ob cealle dsacientif iwc ay. Woodward ,and others was devoted to creating and maintain¬
In reference to Lord’s 1707 letter to Petiver about the fossil ing a network of collectors, not least in the New World.
fish tail (see “Some Early Records,” above) Simpson stated A very good taste of the flavor of time and place can be had
(1942:135), “The incident is...unique for its date, and for a from Stearns’ (1952:293-303) account of how the group
long time there after, in involving a small fossil vertebrate. cooked up a collector in cleric’s clothing. The Bishop of Lon¬
Mos to fthe eighteenth century naturalists overlooked bones of don ,in 1694 ,sought advice from Martin Lister in recommend¬
animals smaller than the mastodon_” Simpson (1943:27) re¬ ing a candidate for chaplain to the governor of Maryland. This
garded letters from Cotton Mather as the “first publication on eventuated in Edward Lhwyd’s putting forward his assistant,
American fossil vertebrates” (published in 1714 in the Royal Hugh Jones ,whose specific qualification was that he would be
Society's Philosophica lTransactions) ,and Simpson thought a worthy successor to John Banister .Jones was groomed in nat¬
they probably were based on mastodon remains .In allusion to ura lhistory ,run hastily through religious orders ,and rushed off
Catesby’s 1743 report of African slaves’ recognition of fossil to Maryland .Besides Lister and Lhwyd ,James Petiver ,Samuel
proboscidean teeth ,Simpson (1942:134 )credited them with the Doody, Jacob Bobart, and Tancred Robinson are known to
“firs ttechnica lidentification o fan American fossi lvertebrate,” have had specific roles in the care and feeding of Jones; Petiver
assuming the incident to have occurred prior to 1739 .Based on quite literally—besides equipment ,supplies ,and literature ,he
the collection from Big Bone Lick, primarily of mastodon re¬ sent Jones a Cheshire cheese and English beer, plus medicine
mains, Simpson stated (1942:135), “If Columbus discovered and medica ladvice (Stearns ,1952:297 ,299 ,303).
America  in  1492,  Charles  Le  Moyne,  second  Baron  de John Woodward (1696 )provided “brie finstructions” to geo¬
Longueuil, discovered American fossil vertebrates in 1739.” logical collectors (see Eyles, 1971:403; Price, 1989:93, foot¬
Simpson (1942:144-145) added that “Guettard (1756, read in note 7) .Petiver also prepared instructions ,which were sent out
1752) published the first illustration o fan American vertebrate with travellers and to correspondents. These were highly so¬
fossil...  [and]  a  decade  later  Daubenton  (1764,  read  in phisticated, even to the point of recommending the stomach
1762).. .[provided].. .an excellent example of the comparative contents of sharks, and other great fish, as a source of “divers
method... one of the four most basic... principles in the rise of strange animals not easily to be met with elsewhere” (Steams,
NUMB E9R0 15
1952:363). As to fossils (his “formed Stones) ,Petiver instruct¬ have been that he knew too much .Lister knew mollusks as per¬
ed, “These must be got as intire as you can, the like to be ob¬ haps none other of the time, and demanded, but did not find,
served in marbled Flints, Slates, or other Stones, that have the exact correspondence between fossi land living forms .He was
Impression of Plants, Fishes, Insects, or other Bodies in them; no fool—witness his coming close to “inventing” geologic
these are to be found in Quarries, Mines, Stone or Gravel Pitts, mapping (Lyons, 1944:99; Steams, 1970:168). He might well
Caves, Cliffs, and Rocks, on the Sea shoar, or wherever the be the Agassiz to Hooke’s Darwin in this debate. Further, rec¬
Earth is laid open” (Stearns ,1952:364). ognition of fossils as such created serious problems in the
Thus ,these natura lhistorians knew exactly what they want¬ frame of reference of the time .From it followed almost inevita¬
ed and devoted much thought ,energy ,and money toward get¬ bly the problem of extinction of forms without modem coun¬
ting it .Much of their massive correspondence concerns details terpart, and this was unacceptable in a perfectly economical
of instructing ,inducing ,exhorting ,even bribing others to col¬ universe, whether divine or natural. It was in relation to this
lect (e.g., see MacGregor, 1995, on Sloane’s correspondence problem tha tfossi land modern natura lhistory specimens from
and Steams ,1952 ,on Petiver’s). far off places, such as America, held special appeal. Locally
SHARKS ’Teeth .—Sharks ’teeth are the quintessentia lenig¬ extinc torganisms migh twel lsurvive elsewhere.
mas of nature, whose charm has inspired wonder, and finally With the possible exception of Lister, it might be observed
researches, more widely and continuously than perhaps any that the practices of those who equivocated on the nature of
other fossil. It would scarcely be possible to overemphasize fossils made sense only if they in fact accepted their organic or¬
thei rimportance in cutting-edge debate on the meaning ,nature, igin. For example, Grew (1681:257) extrapolated (pretty suc¬
and definition o ffossils in the sixteenth and seventeenth centu¬ cessfully) on the size of shark (36 feet; -11 m) from which
ries .As indicated earlier ,Rudwick (1976) has done a masterful large glossopetrae originated; Sloane’s (1697) paper on ray
job in laying out the major features of the story as it unfolded in teeth was based solidly on comparative methodology—his per¬
the pioneering works of Colonna, Scilla, Steno, and Hooke; functory allusion to God’s wisdom seems all too much like
these need not be retold ,but some essentia lpoints may be em¬ covering his flank. One is tempted to suspect persistence of a
phasized. certain measure o faccommodation to authority through lip ser¬
First ,“fossil” continued for many years to encompass almost vice while proceeding operationally on the basis of persuasive
any, usually natural, object “dug-up” from the earth, notably ne iwnsights.
minera lspecimens .“Figured stones” was a common term for Another fascinating aspect in which sharks’ teeth illustrate
what we now understand as fossils .Unti lthere was genera lac¬ how scientific discovery works is the fact that Steno, Scilla,
knowledgmen ttha tobjects resembling living animals o rplants Hooke, and Woodward were essentially coeval in their re¬
actually were remains of once-living things ,there was no logi¬ searches .Barring some more persuasive evidence o fintellectu¬
cal basis to require a distinction from other interesting things a lpiracy than has thus far materialized ,the interesting point is
du ugp. that this was an idea whose time had come. Hooke was a great
Sharks ’teeth ,as glossopetrae o rtongue-stones ,were widely and wide-ranging idea man, and there is no need to detract
and deeply embedded in European pre-scientific culture ,ema¬ from his astounding originality .His geologic insights and pri¬
nating especially from Malta, where the fossils are abundant orities have at last been well presented (Drake, 1996). Never¬
and are conveniently intertwined with the religious and magi¬ theless ,he clearly had a tendency toward jealousy of priority—
cal lore of St. Paul, serpents, and poison (for a sampling of this whatever the topic, he thought of it first (which contributed
lore ,see Zammit-Maempel ,1975 ,1989 ,and Bassett ,1982). strongly to his irreparable schism with Newton). Even if Steno
From our present god-like heights of sophistication we have was aware of Hooke’s and/or Scilla’s ideas, he has to be ac¬
tended to dismiss the seeming wrongheaded reluctance to rec¬ corded primacy because he developed the idea fully with step-
ognize sharks’ teeth and other fossils for what they are as the by-step logica lprocedure ,which has been brought out best by
ridiculou signorance o fbenighted times ;however t,hese gentle¬ Scherz (1969 ,1971) .Woodward clashed with almost everyone,
men were no simpletons but rather the greatest minds o fthat or was a thoroughly unsympathetic character ,and was accused of
any other age .Even after presentation of the careful ,logica lar¬ pirating Scilla’s ideas, but he probably was not a plagiarist
guments of Steno and Hooke, widely circulated in the Royal (Jahn, 1972:210) (useful and accessible insights into Wood¬
Society, that community of scholars did not rise as one in ac¬ ward’s activities and character may be found in Eyles, 1971,
ceptance .Instead ,the subject was hotly contested for some 30 and Levine ,1977).
years before being laid to rest pretty much by the early 1700s. Another grea ttruth illustrated by this history is tha tdiscover¬
Grew, Hooke, Lhwyd, Woodward, Ray, Lister, Newton, and ies do not stay discovered; they must be tended like a garden.
Scheuchzer all weighed in on the issue (e.g. ,see Stokes ,1969). Scilla (1670) illustrated what turned out to be the first known
Some ,including Hooke ,Woodward ,and Scheuchzer ,were de¬ specimen o fa sharktoothed porpoise ,family Squalodontidae ,a
cisive in their support of organic origin. In this group only List¬ nice piece of a mandible with three teeth. This historic speci¬
er was adamant in his opposition .His views have been charac¬ men ,preserved in the Woodward Collection at Cambridge ,has
terized as ridiculous in hindsight ,but his problem ,in part ,may since been the object of repeated attention in the paleontologi-
16 SMITHSONIA CNONTRIBUTION T SPOALEOBIOLOGY
cal literature of the modern era. Although first formally de¬ Acknowledgments
scribed as a seal ,and in one aberrant view regarded as a hippo¬
potamus (Owen, 1840-1845:564-565, pi. 142: fig. 3), it has This is perhaps the last seemly opportunity to thank David J.
long since become securely and correctly embedded in the lit¬ Bohaska,  National  Museum of Natural  History (NMNH),
erature as a squalodont cetacean ,the holotype of Squalodon Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., for his steadfast
melitensis (Blainville) ,where it has been alluded to and figured and effective assistance not only in all aspects of my research
repeatedly (e.g., see McCoy, 1867:145; Kellogg, 1923:24; but in preparation of volumes III and IV, as he now has the
Gunther,  1937:433,  unnumbered  figure,  p.  432;  Fabiani thankless status of coeditor in recognition of the reality of his
1949:26-29, figs. 9, 10; Rothausen, 1968:92). Then, in 1992, indispensable contributions I.n preparation and repreparation
Gould (in Purcell and Gould, 1992:93-94, figs. 64, 65) misi- of illustrations ,it has been our good fortune to have had the un¬
dentified the specimen as the jaw of a shark ,invalid support for flagging ,even enthusiastic ,support and initiative of Irina Ko-
the valid interpretation o fglossopetrae .Although as always we retsky, Victor E. Rrantz, and Mary Parrish (all of the NMNH).
have a duty to correct objective mistakes, especially by con¬ Long after our golden prose has tarnished ,the pictures wil lre¬
temporary and influentia lauthorities (1 wrote to Gould imme¬ mai na snew.
diately upon discovering the error ,8 March 1993) ,the signifi¬ For the substantive content of these volumes, we are of
cant point is hardly that even the greatest living spokesperson course indebted to two groups, in part overlapping. First, the
for paleontology to the world at large is fallible, but that ap¬ collectors, mostly unpaid volunteers, without whom there
proach to truth is a fragile dynamic that requires continua lvigi¬ could be no science of paleontology. They are named as ap¬
lance. There may be some validity to Gould’s (1996:110) claim propriate in the individual papers. Second, the researchers
that “persistent minor errors of pure ignorance are galling to who have contributed the papers that give meaning to the
perfectionistic professionals,” but this has no bearing on the specimens. Many of them have waited, not totally with pa¬
overriding requiremen tha teach professiona sl triv eassiduous¬ tience ,but they have waited ,a quarter century ,for my unreal¬
ly to get things right and never knowingly let even “minor er¬ istic expectations of early conclusion to become reality. This
ror ps”ersist. delay has required the greatest forbearance from the most
Finally ,the history of sharks’ teeth in relation to humans is a prompt authors ,in that they have had to revise and update re¬
powerfu lcautionary tale agains tfashion in science .Fortunate¬ peatedly.
ly ,people in genera lhave maintained a seemingly innate curi¬ Numerous individuals have aided generously in preparation
osity and interes tin them throughou ttime .In professiona lpale¬ of this small historical paper, with information and advice on
ontology, however, when I was a student some four decades specimens r, ecords a, nd literature T. hese include a, lphabetical¬
ago at a prestigious university, only a naive beginner would ly by surname, Vanessa J.A. Carr (Public Record Office, Chan¬
risk being labelled childish ,or worse ,“amateurish,” by betray¬ cery Lane, London), Mike Dorling (Department of Earth Sci¬
ing any interest in sharks' teeth (or dinosaurs) .Now dinosaurs ences, Cambridge), Burkart Engesser (Naturhistorisches
are the hottes ttopic in vertebrate paleontology ,and even sharks Museum ,Basel) ,Paula Findlen (History Department ,Universi¬
are respectable subjects of investigation (Klimley and Ainley, ty of California, Davis), Gerald M. Friedman (City University
1996) .Scientists are probably no more foolish as a group than of New York), Ivor Noel Hume (Colonial Williamsburg, Vir¬
the citizenry at large in lurching to extremes ,but they may tend ginia) ,Michae lHunter (Department of History ,Birkbeck Col¬
to appear so in retrospect because they put extreme views on lege ,University of London) ,Laura Laurencich-Minell i(Dipar-
record in emphatic terms .More reflective attention to the histo¬ timento d iPaleografia e Medievistica ,Universita Degl istud idi
ry of our science would undoubtedly tend to mitigate our most Bologna),  Urs  B.  Leu  (Zentralbibliothek,  Zurich),  Arthur
embarrassing emanations and perhaps damp down fadism .I MacGregor (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford), Patrick Nuttall
hope that these few modest historical nuggets are enough to (The Natural History Museum, London), H. Philip Powell
persuade readers tha tancien tspecimens ,many los tor mislaid, (Geologica lCollections ,University Museum ,Oxford) ,Christa
and the thinking and writing surrounding them are not mere Riedl-Dorn  (Archiv-Leitung,  Naturhistorisches  Museum,
quaint curiosities but are landmarks that can and should have Wien), Mary Sampson (The Royal Society, London), Carlo
meani ntogday.
Secord (1996:459) has made a forceful case for the value of Sarti (Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Universita degli
history not merely as entertainment or nostalgia but as an ac¬ Studi di Bologna), Antony J. Sutcliffe (The Natural History
tive force in research ,concluding: Museum, London). G. Taylor (The British Library, London),K.J. Wallace (Central Archives, The British Museum, Lon¬
Rathe r ab, ol denquir yint oth epas cta nuncove trh ebasi cstructure sand don) ,and George Zammit-Maempe l(Birkirkara ,Malta).
large-sca lpeattern  oscfhang wehic lh ibeehin odu crurren dtilemma sW. heave For critical review and improvement of the manuscript I
inherite ndo jut sotu inr stitution asn pdractice sb,u otu prroblem sa:n tdhes cean
on lby eunderstoo da psroduct os hfistor y An. ew cultur eo nfatura hlistor wy ill thank David J. Bohaska and I thank Ellen Compton-Gooding
flouris hon l iy iftesffective lryoote din—an draw uspon— acritica ulnder¬ (now retired) and Lauck W. Ward (both Virginia Museum of
standin  otgh fpeast. Natura Hl istory M, artinsville).
NUMB E9R0 17
Literature  Cited
Amb Broasritnhuoslo, maeus 1971 J.oh nWoodward F, .R.S .F, .R.C.P .M, .D (.1665-1728) A :Bio-bib-
164 8U.lyss iAsldrovand Pi,atric Biiononiens iMs, usaeu m etallicu min liographica Al ccoun ot Hf i sLif ean dWork J.ourna ol tfh eSociety
libro Isllldistributio n[v.i]+979+[l 3p]age Bs.ologn aM:. AB.emia. fo trh eBibliograph yo Nf atura Hl istory 5,(6 )39:9—4 27 1p, late.
[Edite adn pdublishe bd Aymbrosinu asfte Arldrovandi ’dseath. Fab Riaanmi,iro
Man wy oodcut s,om feu pllag ein, tersperse di ntex nt,o stequen¬ 194 9G. Oli dontoce tdi eMl iocen ienferior deel lSaicili aM. emor ideell’Is-
tial lnyumbered S.e Feigur f1eo trit lpeage.] titut oGeologic ode l'lUniversit d Piadova 1,6:1-32 1, 0figure s2,
Anonymous plates.
1993 V. irginia’ sOfficia Sl tat eFossi lV. irgini aExplorer 9, (2):28  2,un¬ Find Pleanu,la
num fbigeurerdes. 199 4P.ossessin Ngatur eM: useum sC,ollectin ga,n Sdcientif iCcultur ien
Aub Jroehyn, Ear lMy oder nItal yx,viii+45 0page sf,rontispiece 3, 6figure s2t,a¬
1898 .“ Brie fLives," Chiefly o fContemporaries :Se tDown by John ble sB.erkele yU: niversit oy Cfaliforni aPres s[.S iox tfh efigure asre
Aubrey b,etwee nth eYear 1s66 9 &1696 V.olum e1 x,v+42 7pages; mu spelaunms.]
volum e2 3,7 0page s5p, lates O. xford C: larendo nPress [.Edited Frick G, eorg eF .J,ame sL R. evea lC, R. os eBroome a, n dMelvi nL B. rown
fro mth aeuthor m’sanuscrip tb Asyndre Cwlark.] 198 7B.otanic aElxploration asn Ddiscoverie  iCsnoloni aMl arylan d1,688
Basse Mtt,icha Ge.l t 1o75 3H.unti a7,:5-59.
198 2“.Forme Sdtones ,F”olklor aen Fdossil sN.ation aMl useum o Wf ales, Furre rH, ein za,n dUr Bs L.eu
Geologic Sael rie 1s:,1-3  4u23,nnumber efidgures. 199 D8 Le. arndesplattenbe Ergn gFio:rschungsgeschich tFeo,ssili eun d
B iTrhcho,mas Geologie 1.3 2pages 1,3 7figures E.ng iS,witzerland S:tiftung
1756-1757 T. h eHistor yo tfh eRoya Sl ociet yo Lfondon f,o Irmprovin gof Landesplatt Eengbie.rg
Natura Kl nowledge f,rom It sFirs Rt ise V. olum e1 [,v i +]51 1pages Germon R, ay eN .L,auc kW W. ard a, n dClayto nE R. ay
(1756 )v;olum e2 [,ii]+50 1page (s1756 )v;olum e3 [,ii]+52 0pages 1987 E.cphora I;mportan Ftoss filrom th eMiocen eStrat ao nth eChesa¬
(1757 )v;olum e4 [,ii]+55 8page (s1757 )L.ondon A :M. illar. peak Bea yM. arylan Ndaturalis 3t,1 ()1:25—3  f 31ig, ures.
Bu Dtlecrl,an Gilmo rCeh,ar lWes.
1997 F.renc hMuseum “I nDecay ”Fight sfo Irt sLife N. ature 3,85(6615): 1941  A.Histor yo tfh eDivisio no Vf ertebrat ePaleontolog yi nth eUnited
378. Stat eNsation Maluseum P.roceeding  otsh fUenite Sdtat eNsational
Challin Jo. r, Museu 9m0(,3109):305-3 p77la, t4e9s-53.
1953 T. h eEarl yProgres so fBritish Geology I ,F: rom Leland to Wood¬ Gou lSdt,eph eJany
ward 1,538-172  A8.nna los Sfcience 9,(2 )1:24-153 1p, late. 1996 A. fterword T: h eTrut ho Ff iction A:  nExegesi so Gf .G S. impson’s
Clar kA,la nJ. Dinosa uFar ntas IGyn.eor gGeaylo rSdimpso Tn h,Deechronization
1992 T. he Histor yo fthe Roya Sl ociety :A Chronologica Cl hecklis tof o Sfam Magrude rp,age 1s05-12 6N. e wYor kS: tM. artin ’Psress.
Book si nEnglish N. ote san dRecord so tfh eRoya Sl ociet yo Lfon¬ 1997 S.eekin gt oExplai nSe aFossi los nMountai nRidge sL,eonard oDe¬
do n46, (2):335-34 [5C. ontain vsaluab gleuid  tSeoociety p’seriodi¬ veloped His Theory o fThe Living Earth .Natura lHistory,
c al nsinddexes.] 106(4 )1:8-21 5,8-64  1u, nnumbere dfigure [.Liste di nth etabl eof
Cope mWa.Sn.,C. content us nde Gr ould’ rsegula crolum na “sTh iVs iew o Lfife L:e¬
1960 D.  rJ.onatha nGoddard F,.R.S (.1617-1675 )N. ote san dRecord sof onard oLi’vs iEnagrth.”]
th eRoya Sl ociet yo Lfondon 1, 5:69-77  1u, nnumbere dfigure, G Nrehwe,miah
pla 6t.e 1681 M. usaeum Regali sSocietatis O; arCatalogu e &Descriptio no tfhe
Davidso Jna ,nPe. Natura aln dArtificia Rlaritie Bs elongin gt oth eRoya Slociet aynd
2000 .Fish Tales :Attributing the Firs tIllustration o fa Foss iSl hark’s Preserve ad Gtresham Colleg e[.x i3+i]86+[2]+4 p3age s3 ,p1lates.
Toot ht oRichar dVerstega n(1605 a)n dNicola Ssten o(1667 )P.ro¬ London W:  R. awlin sfo rth eauthor [.Se eFigur e 2fo rtitl epage f;i¬
ceeding so tfh eAcadem yo Nf atura Slcience so Pf hiladelphia, n a4 pl3age asn pdlate 2s3-3 d1evote t dcoomparativ aenatomy.]Gros sP,au Rl N., orma nLevit ta,n dMarti nW L.ewi se,ditors
150:329- 3fi 4g4u,res.
Drak Eel,l eTnan 1996 T.h eFligh ftrom Scienc ean dReason A. nnal so tfh eNew Yor kAcad¬
199 6R.estles Gs eniu sR:obe rHt ook aen dH iEsarth lTyhought sx,iv+386 em o ySfcience s1,1 5x:i+59 p3ages.Gunt Rh.eTr.,
page s6, 1figure s7p, late sN. ew Yor kan dOxford O: xfor dUniver¬ 1937 E.arl yScienc ei nCambridge x, i+5i1 3page sm, an yillustration sO. x¬
 sPirteyss. ford T:h Ueniversi tPyres s[.Reprinte 1d96 9L,ondon D:awson osf
Edwa Wrd.Ns,. P Malal ll.]
1931 G. uid et oa nExhibitio nIllustratin gth eEar lHy istor oy Pfalaeontol¬ 1945 E. arl yScienc ein Oxford X, IV L: if eand Letter so fEdward Lhwyd.
og yB.ritis hMuseum (Natur aHl istor )Sy,peci aGl uid e8,:i-v 7i,-68, xvi+57 p6age s1 p,4late sO.xfor dT:h Ueniversi tPyres s[R. eprinted
1 9figures  4p, lates [. Arevise dedition T,h eEarl yHistor yo Pf alae¬ 196 8L,ondo nD:awson o sPfa Mll all.]
ontology w, a psublishe db yth emuseum i n1967 b,u tth eorigina ils Heika Dmeptl,ef
mor evaluabl eo naccoun ot ift asllusio nt oth exhibitio nan dth eci¬ 1976 A.merica nObject i snItalia nCollection os tfh eRenaissanc ean dBa¬
tatio on sfpecimen  isint.] roque  AS: urvey I .nFred Cihiappel lei,dito rF.irs Itmage os Afmer¬
Ewa nJo,sep ha,n Ndes tEawan ica T: h eImpac to fth eNew World on th eOld 1, :455-482 f,igures
1970 J.ohn Baniste rand Hi sNatura Hl istor yo fVirginia 1, 678-1692. 31-53 B. erkeley U: niversit yo Cf aliforni aPress [.Michae Jl.B.
xxx+486+[2 p]age s9“,chart asn dexhibits ,7” 0figure sU. rbana, Alle ann Rdobe rLBt.enso nco, editors.]
Chicag oa,n Ldondo nU:niversi t oyIlflino iPsress. Ho Rookbe,ert
Eyl eVs.A, . 170 5L.ecture asn Ddiscourse  oEsfarthquake asn Sdubterraneou Esrup¬
1958 T.h eInfluenc eo Nf icolau Ssten o nth eDevelopmen o tGf eological tion sE;xplicatin gth eCause os tfh eRugge dan dUneve nFac eo tfhe
Scienc ei nBritain I .nGusta Svcher ze,dito rN, icolau Ssten oan dHis Earth a;n dWha Rt eason Ms a yB eGive nfo trh eFrequen Ftindin gof
Ind ipcea,g 1e6s7-1 8C8o.penhag eMnu: nksgaard. Shel lasn Odthe Sre an Ldan Pdetrifie Sdubstance sS,cattere odver
18 SMITHSONIA CNONTRIBUTION T SPOALEOBIOLOGY
th We ho lTeerrestri aSluperficie sI Rn. ichar Wd alle rT,h Peosthu¬ MacGrego re,ditor sT,h Oerigin o sMf useum sT:h Ceabine  oCtjuri¬
mou Ws ork os Rfober Ht ooke.. .p.age 2s77-450 p, late 1s-7 [.Re¬ osit i Seinisxteent ahn -Sdeventeenth-Centu Eryurop pea, g e1s7-23.
printed ,1969 ,in The Sources o fScience ,73 :xxvii i+ [6 ]+ 572 Oxfo Crlda:ren dPorness.
[actuall y506 ]+ [l2 ]pages 1, 3 plates .New York and London: Laurencich-Mine Lllai,u raa nM,dauri zSieorra
Johnso Rnepri nCtorporatio v Ana.luab nlee ewditio “ntranscribed, 198 8(“1987” )T.r aMuse oeBiblioteca U:  nesempi ode ml etod od liavoro
annotate da,n wdi tah in troductio b nEylle Tna Dnrake c”onstitutes  Udilis sAeldrovan “dAi mericanista M.”useolog Siacientifi c(Vae¬
th me ajo pra ro tDfrak e1,996.] rona )4,(3—4):221-228 2f,igure s[.Dat eo ntitl epag  ei1s987 a;ctu¬
Hum Iev ,oNroel
1994 C.ust iSsquare T:h eWilliamsbur gHom ean dGarde no aVf er yCuri¬ a lplyublishe i1dn988.]
ou Gsentlema nC.oloni aWl illiamsbur g1,6(4 1):2-2 61 u,4nnum¬ LeF aWniull,iam1990 N. ehemiah Grew M.D .F, .R.S. :A Stud yand Bibliograph yo fHis
b feigreudres.
Hu Mntiecrh,ael Writing sx,viii+18 p2age sfr,ontispiec  ep7,late sW. incheste rS:t.
198 5T.h Ceabine Itnstitutionalize dT:h Reoy aSlociety '“sRepository” Pau lB’sibliographie [sD. istribut etin hdAemeric a bOsymnigraph¬
an dI tBsackground I .nOlive Irmpe ayn dArthu Mr acGrego re,di¬  iIcns cD.,etroit.]
tors T,h eOrigin so Mf useums T:h eCabine ot Cf uriositie si nSix¬ Lemoni cMk,ich aDe.l
teen tah nS-deventeenth-Centu Eruyrop pea,g 1e5s9-16 O8x. ford: 199 6D. umpin go nDarwin T.im eM, arc h1 81,996:81.
Clare Pnrdeosns. Levin Jeo,se pMh.
1989 E.stablishin gth eNew Science T:h eExperienc eo tfh eEarl yRoyal 1977 D.  rW. oodward' Sshield H: istory S,cienc ean dSatir ei nAugustan
Societ yx  3,i+v8 p2age sW. oodbridg eB:oyde Pllress. Englan xd+,3 6p2age fsr,ontispiec  2ue0n, number efidgure Bse. rke¬
1994 T.h eRoya Slociet yan dIt sFellows 1,660-1700 T:h eMorpholog yof le yL,o Asngele sa,n Ldondon U:niversi to yCfaliforn iParess.
a nEar lSycientif iIcnstitution B.ritis hSociet fyo trh eHistor oy Sfci¬ Ly oHnesn,ry
enc em, onograp  4h i2+x:9 p1age s,econ eddition. 1940 T. he Record o fthe Roya Sl ociet yo fLondon fo rthe Promotion of
Impe Oy,live arn ,Adrth uMracGrego erd, itors Natur aKlnowledge F.ourt hedition v ,5+ii7 p8age s1 ,p9late sL.on¬
1985 T.h eOrigin os Mf useums T:h eCabine ot Cf uriositie is nSixteenth- don M: orriso nan dGibb f,o trh Reoy aSlociety.
an Sdeventeenth-Centu rEyurop xei,v+3 3p5age 1s 0,f8igure Os.x¬ 1944 T.h eRoya Slociety 1,660-1940  AH: istor yo Ift As dministratio nUn¬
fo Crdla:rend Porness. d eI trCsharter xs+, 35 p4age Cs.ambridg eU:niversi tPyress.
Jah nM, elv iEn. MacGill iWvriallyia, m
1969 S. om eNote so nDr S. cheuchze ar n do nHom odiluv itiestis I. nCecil 1838 M. emo ior Uf lysse sAldrovand iI. nWilliam MacGillivray B, ritish
 JS.chnee re,dito rT.owar daHistor y>o Gf eology p, age 1s92-213 3, Quadrupe dT shN.eaturalis Lt'isbra 2ry2,:17- 5E8d.inburgh.
figur Cesa.mbrid gMea,ssachuse tMts. :IP.Tre. ss. MacGre gAorrt,h eudri,tor
1972  AB. ibliographica Hl istor yo Jfoh nWoodward’ sA nEssa ytowar da 199 4S. iHr an Ssloan eC,ollecto rS,cientis tA,ntiquar yF,oundin gFather
Natura Hl istor yo tfh eEarth J.ourna o ltfh eSociet yfo trh eBibliog¬ o tfh eBritis hMuseum 3.0 8page s1,1 5figure s4, 0plate sL.ondon:
raph oy Nf atura Hl istor y6,(3 )1:8 1-21 31 ,0figures. Britis Mh useu mPres  isan,ssociatio wni tAhlista Mir cAlpine.
1975  AN. ot eo nScheuchzer sVersification J.ourna ol tfh eSociet yfo trhe 199 5T.h Ne atur aHl istor Cyorrespondenc oe Sf iHr an Ssloan eA.rchives
Bibliograph  oNyfatur Halistor 7y (,)3:32 —1 322. o Nf atur aHl istor y2,2 1( )7:9-90.
Jess oLp. , Maiensc Jhaenien,
1989 T.h eClu ba tth eTempl eCoffe eHouse—Fact asn dSupposition A.r¬ 1994 C. uttin gEdge sCu Bt ot hWays B. iolog yan dPhilosophy 9, 1(  )-I:24.
chiv eoNsfatur Halistor 1y6, ()3:263—274. M aNualln, cy
Jillso Wn,illa Rrdouse 199 7S.cienc uend eSrcrutin yH.an’ar Md agazin e9,9(4):22-2 52.7.
1936 B. i gBon eLick A:  nOutlin eo Ift sHistory G, eology a, n dPaleontol¬ Mc FCroeyd,erick
ogy t, oWhic hI sAdde da nAnnotate dBibliograph yo 2f0 7Titles. 1867 O.  nth eOccurrenc eo tfh eGenu sSqualodo ni nth eTertiar yStrat aof
Bi gBon Leic Akssociatio nPublicatio n 1 x,s:vi+16 p4age sf,rontis¬ Victori aG.eologic aMl agazin e4,(34 )1:4 5p,lat  8ef:igur 1e.
pie uc 4en,number efdigure Lso. uisvil lKee, ntuck Syt:anda rPdrint¬ Mcl vTeorm,
 Cionmgpany. 199 2A.nti-Evolution AR:eader 'Gs uid te oWriting Bsefor aen dAfte Dr ar¬
Josse Jloyhnn,
1674 A.  nAccoun ot Tf w oVoyage st oNew-England M, ad edurin gthe wi nxv. +38 p5age Bs.altimor eJo:hn Hsopkin Usniversi tPyress.
Year s1638 1, 663 x. i +i2 1pI ages B. oston W: illiam Veazie [.1865 M cDKoieu,glas
editio nta, ke fnro msecon edditio n1,67 5a,n odth esrources.] 1960 T.h eOrigin san dFoundatio no tfh eRoya Slociet yo Lfondon N. otes
Ke Rlloegmgi,ngton an dRecord so tfh eRoya Slociet yo Lfondon 1,5:1-38 p, lat eI.
192 3D.escriptio o nTfw Soqualodon tRsecent lDyiscovere  idtnh Cealvert Mo Nreilclo,letta
Cliff Ms, arylan da;n Ndote o stnh Sehark-Toothe Cdetacean Ps.ro¬ 1979 L. aNascit adell aPaleontologi ane Sleicento C: olonna S,tenon e
ceeding os tfh Ue nite dState Ns ation aMl useum 6,2 1(6  -)I6: 9p,lates Scill a2.6 p5age sM. ilan F:ranc oAnge l(i.I nItalian.]
 12-  0. 198 D1 Gelossopetr idsissertati oT:h Deemonstratio bn Fyab iCoolonna
Klimle yA ,P.ete ra,n dDavi dG A. inle ye,ditors o tfh Teru Neatur o eFfossil sA.rchive Isnternationale ds'Histoire
1996 G. rea Wt hit eSharks T: h eBiolog yo Cf archarodo ncarcharias. d Secsienc e3s1,:63-71.
x 5+ii1 p7age sS.a nDiego A:cadem iPcress. Nature
Latro Bb.He,. 199 0MA. ajo Mr useum Goe “sPopulist .N"atur e3,45(6270)4-2.
1799 M. emo ior nth eSand-Hil los Cf ap eHenr yi nVirginia T.ransactions Oldroy Dd,av Rid.
 oth fAemerica Pnhilosophic aSol ciet 4y:,439—44 p 13l,ate. 1989 G. eologica Clontrovers iy nth eSeventeent hCentury “:Hook evs
1809 A. nAccoun o ttfh eFreeston eQuarrie os nth ePotoma acn dRappah- Wallis a”n dIt Asftermath I .nMicha eHl unte arn dSimo nSchaffer,
ann oRciver Tsr.ansactio n otsh fAemerica Pnhilosophic Saol ciety, editor Rs,obe Hrtook Ne,e Swtudie ps,ag e2s07-23 W3.oodbridge:
6:283-293. Bo yPdrelsls.
Laurencich-M Lianuerlali, Osbo Hrne, nFrayirfield
198 M5.useograph ayn Edthnographic Calollectio niBnsologn daurin tghe 193 1C.ope M: aste Nr aturalis vtx,i+74 p0age s3 ,f0igure sP.rinceton N, ew
Sixteent ahn Sdeventeent Chenturie sI On. live Irmpe ayn Adrthur Jers ePyr:incet Uonivers Pitryess.
NUMB E9R0 19
Ow Reicnh,ard ure Os.dens Oe:den sUenivers iPtyres [sM. o fsigt ur eusnnumbered,
1840-184 5O. dontograph yO; Tra,reatis oe tnh Ceomparativ Aenatomy som s eparat enluymber  cbehdyapter.]
 othf Teeet hT;he Pirhysiologic aRlelation sM, od  oeDfevelopment, Scheuch zJoehr, aJanknob
an dMicroscop iSctructur ei nt,h Veertebrat Aenimal sV.olum 1e, 1708 P.iscium Querela e Vtindiciae 3. 6page s5p, late sT.igur iG: essneri-
tex tx,ix+lxxiv+65 5pages v,olum e2 a, tlas 3, 7pages 1,6 8plates. ani s[.Se eFigur e4fo tritl epage.]
Lond Honip:po lBytaeilliere. S cAilglao,stino
Pet Jiavmere, s 167 0L .Vaan sapeculazion deisingannat da aSlenso L;etter raisponsiva
1705 A.  nAccoun to Af nimal san dShell sSen tfrom Carolin at oM rJames circa ci orp mi arin ic, he petrificat si tirovano in var iliuogh tier-
Petiver F, .R.S P. hilosophica Tl ransaction s[fo rMay 1, 705], restr 1i.6 8page s2, 8plate sN. aple s[.Republishe di nLatin 1,747 a,s
24(299 1):952-196 [0P.ag e1s95 a3n 1d95 d4uplicated.] D ceorporibu msarin liaspidescentibus a..n. rdeprinte Nde Ywork:
Pr Dicaev, id Am Pore s1s9,80.]
198 9Jo. h Wn oodwar adn Sadurvivin Bgritis Gheologic aClollectio fnrom Secor Jda,m eAs.
th Eear lEyighteent hCentur yJo. urn ao tlfh He istor o yCfollections, 1996 T. h eCrisi so fNature I.n N J.ardine J,.A S. ecord a, nd E.C S. pary e, d¬
1 )(:179—9  1f5i3g, ures. itor Cs,ulture  oNsfatur aHlistor yp,age 4s47-45 9C.ambridg eU:ni¬
Pum Stfefepyh,en ve rPsrietyss.
1991 I.dea sabov eHi sStation  A:Socia Sl tud yo Hf ooke’ sCuratorshi pof Sh aSpteinv,en
Experimen tHs.isto roSyfcienc 2e 91, ()83:1-37. 1989 W. h owa sRober Ht ooke ?I nMichae Hl unte ar n dSimo nSchaffer,
Purce lRl,osamon Wd ol faf,n Sdtephe Jna Gyould editor Rs,obe Hrtook Ne,e Swtudie ps,ag e2s53-28 W6.oodbridge:
1992 F.inders K, eepers E: igh Ct ollectors 1.5 8pages 1,0 5figures N. ew
Yor Wk:. WN.orton. Bo yPdrelsls.
Ra Cy,layto En. Shaw W, illia mA e.,ditor
1983 P. rologue I. nClayto nE R. ay e,dito rG. eolog yan dPaleontolog yof 1935 C. alenda ro Tf reasur yBooks J,anuar y169 3t oMarch 1696 P, re¬
th Lee Ceree Mk in eN,ort Charolin aSI.,mithsonia Cnontributions serve di nth ePubli cRecor dOffice V. olum e10 p, ar 1 tp, age s1-592.
 Ptaoleobiolo g5y3,:1-14. Londo Hn M:isajesty S’statione Oryffice.
1987 F.oreword I. nClayto nE R. ay e,dito rG, eolog yan dPaleontolog yof Simps Goneo, rGgaeylord
th Lee Ceree Mk in eN,or tCharolin a1 ,1S.mithsonia Cnontributions 194 2T.h Beeginning o sVfertebrat Pealeontolog  iyNnort Ahmeric aP.ro¬
 tPoaleobiolog 6y,1:1 - f83ig, ures. ceeding o stfh Aemerica Pnhilosophic aSlociet y8,6 1( )1:30-18 82,3
Reding tJons,e epdhi,tor figures.
1868 C.alenda or Tfreasur Pyaper s1,556/7-1696 6.6 7page sL.ondon: 1943 T. h eDiscover yo Ffoss iVl ertebrate si nNort hAmerica J.ourna ol f
Longman G, reen R,ende arn dDye rp,rinte db yEyr ean dSpottis- Paleontolog  1y) 71:,2(6— 3f 2i8g,ures.
wood fe oHr eMr ajesty ’Sstatione rOyffic e[C. ontain 4 s“2volumes” Slo aHnaen,s
with ionn veolum pe,aginate  adosne.] 1697 A. n Accoun to tfh eTongu eo  afPastinac aMarina F, requen tin the
Rober Btsr,yn lFe.y Sea sabou Jtamaica a, n dLatel yDu gU pi nMary-Land a, n dEng¬
1989 .In Search of Edward Lhuyd .Archives of Natura lHistory, lan Pdh. ilosophic Tarlansactio n(fs oSreptembe 1r6, 9 71)9, (232):
 ):1469(—1 57. 674-6 7p 16la, te.
Robin Hso.Wn,. Stea mW,illia Tm.
1946 T.h eAdministrativ eSta fof tfh eRoya Slociety 1,663-1861 N. otes 1981 T.h eNatura Hl istor yMuseum a Stout hKensington  AH: istor yo tfhe
an dRecord os tfh eRoya Slociet oy Lfondon 4,(2 )1:93-205. Britis Mh useu m(Natur aHlistor y1)753-198 0x.xiv+41 p4age 8s,8
Roth aKuasrelhne, inz plate Lso. ndo nH:eineman n[P.ublishe iadnssociatio wni tth Berit¬
196 D8 S.ieystematisch Setellun dg eEruropaische Snqualodontid a(eOd-  iMshuseu (mNatu rHailstory).]
ontoc Metai,mm P.a)l.dontologis cZheeitsch r4if2t(,l/2):83—104, Stea Rmasy,m oPnhdineas
figure 1s- 3p,late 1s 11,2. 1951 .Colonia lFellow so fthe Roya lSociet yo fLondon 1, 661-1788.
Rudwi cMk,ar tJi.nS. Note asn dRecord os tfh eRoya Slociet oy Lfondon 8,(2 )1:78-246.
1976 T.h eMeanin go Ffossils E:pisode is nth eHistor yo Pfalaeontology. 1952 J.ame sPetive rP, romote or Nf atura Slcience c ,1.663-1718 P. ro¬
Secon dedition [,xvi]+28 7page s5, 2figure sN. ew York S:cience ceedin gto hsAfemeric aAnntiquari aSnocie t6y2, (2):243-365.
Hist oPruyblicatio UnsS,A. 1970 S. cienc ei nth eBritis hColonie so Af merica x.x+760+[2 p] ages 3, 2
Sag Caanr,l
1995 T. he Demon-Haunted World :Science a sa Candle in the Dark. full-pag ilelustration Us.rban Ca,hicag aon, Ldondo nU:niversi toyfIlli nPoreis s.
xviii+457+[ 4p]age Ns.e wYor kR:ando mHouse.
Sal tHe.rE,. Sto Ekeves,lyn
191 5R.emark asn Cdollection  osTfhoma Hsearn eV.olum 1e0(March27, 1969 T. he Si xDay sand the Deluge :Some Idea son Earth Histor yin the
1728-Decemb e81r,731 x)i,+49 p6age Os.xfor dO:xfo rHdistorical Roya Sl ociet yo fLondon 1660-1775 E. arth Scienc eJournal,
Soci eCtlya,rend Porness. 3 1(13)-:39.
Schepe Hle.Dm., Stuive rM, inze a,n dHarol dW B.om sJr, .
199 0T.h Me useu mWormianu mReconstructe dNA;o toe tnh Iellustration 197 5L.at Qe uaternar My arin Ienvasio ni nMaine I:t Cshronolog ayn dAs¬
o 1f655 J.ourna ol tfh eHistor yo Cf ollections 2,  1():8 1—85  2f,igures. sociat eCdrus tMalovemen Gt.eologic Saol cie oAtyfmeri cBaulletin,
Sche Grzu,st eadv,itor 86(1):99- 1fi 0g43u,res.
196 9S.ten oG,eologic aPlaper As.c tHaistoric Sacientiaru mNaturaliu met Swe Em.G, .
Medicinalium 2 ,03:7 p0age fsr,ontispiec e2 f,9igure (sdiagrams), 1957 B.rother os tfh eSpade C:orrespondenc eo Pfete Crollinso no Lfon¬
1 3p3late Os.dens Oe:den sUeniversi tPyres [sI.llustratio no psnages don a, n do Jfoh nCustis o, Wf illiamsburg V, irginia 1, 734-1746.
2 2,16 2,17 2,46 2,89-348 m; os “tplates ”tw ope pr age.] [viii]+19 p6age  fs3ig, ure sB.arr eM, assachusett sB:ar rGeazette.
1971 D. issertation os nSten oa Gs eologis tA.ct aHistoric aScientiarum [Reprinte fdro mProceedin gotsh fAemerica Anntiquaria Snociety,
Naturaliu m eMt edicinalium 2 ,3:1 p9age fsr,ontispiec em, an fyig¬ 1949.]
20 SMITHSONIA CNONTRIBUTION T SPOALEOBIOLOGY
Thac kJorahyn, We Cldh,ar lReischard
1994 M. inera aln dFoss iCl ollections I. nArthu Mr acGrego re,dito rS.ir 1848  AH. istor yo tfh eRoya Slociety w, it hMemoir so tfh ePresidents V. ol¬
Han Ssloan eC,ollecto Sr,cientis At,ntiquar yF,oundin Fgathe orf um  2ev,iii+61 p1age sL.ondon Jo: h nW P.arke r[.Facsimi lreeprint,
th Beritis Mh useum p,age 1s23-13 5fi,gure 3s0-3 5L.ondo nB:ritish 197 S5a, lem N,e Hwampshir Ae:yer.]
Museu mPres iasn,ssociatio wni tAhlista MircAlpine. Whi tGee, or gWe.
Thomps Wono,odr Bo.w 195 6Jo. h Jnosselyn ’Gseologic aOlbservation  i1sn672-167 4T.ransac¬
1982 R. ecessio no tfh eLat eWisconsina nIc eShee it nCoasta Ml aine I.n tion o stfh Iellino iAscadem o ySfcienc e4,8:173-182.
Graham LJe.arso nan dByro nD S.ton ee,ditor sL.at We isconsinan Wood wJoahrnd,1696 B. rie fInstruction sfo rMaking Observation sin A lPl art so fthe
Glaciatio on Nfe wEnglan dp,age 2s11-24 21 ,f1igure sD.ubuque, World A :Asls foo Crollectin gP,reservin ga,n Sdendin Og ve Nratu¬
Io wKean: dall/H uPnutblish Cinogmpany. ra Tlhing s2. 0page sL.ondon R:ichar dWilkin [.Reprinte dwit han
Thom Thsonm,as introductio nb yV.A E.yle s1,973 (,ii)+8+(iv)+2 0pages S.ociety
1812 H. istor yo fth eRoya Sl ociety f,rom It sInstitution to th eEnd o fthe fo trh Beibliograph o yNfatur aHlistor yS,herbom Fun Fdacsimile
Eighteen Cthentu rvyi.ii+552+x pcai ge Lso. ndo Rno: be Brtaldwin. num 4b.]er
Tor rHeungs,h 1728-1729 A.  nAttemp toward  saNatura Hl istor yo tfh eFossd so Efng¬
1985 .Early Collecting in the Field o fGeology .In Olive rImpey and land ;in a Catalogue o fthe English Fossil sin the Collection o fJ.
Arthu Mr acGrego er,ditor sT.h Oerigin  oMsf useum sT:h Ceabinet Woodward M, .D L. ondon F: F. ayram  J,S. enex  J,O. sborn a, n dT.
 Couf riosit i Seinisxteent ah n-Sdeventeenth-Centu Eryurop pea, ges Longman [.Se ePrice 1,989:93-94 f,o dr etaile danalys iso tfh e12
204-2 1O3x.fo rCdla: rend Porness. separ actaetalogu einsc, lud isnegv seenparat eplayg seedctions.]
Tre Jsaccoqtut,eline You Dnagv,id
199 6C.orpora tPeatron Ms useum sL’a sHtop eS,mithsonia Cnhi eSfays. 1992 T.h eDiscover yo Efvolution 2.5 6pages L.ondon N: atura Hl istoryMuseu Pmublicatio na snC,dambridg Uen: ivers Pitryess.
Washingt oPno s1Dt8,ecemb eI9r,96:DI.
War Lda, u cWk. Zammit-M aGeemoprgeel,1975 F.oss iSlharks T’eeth  AM: edieva Slafeguar dAgains Ptoisoning.
199 0T.h Jeoh nFinc hCollectio n1,82 4I:mportan Bteginnin gfo Praleon¬ Mel iHtaistori c6a(,4):391—4 p1 5l0a,tes.
tologic aSltudie  iVnsirgin iaan tdh We ester Hnemispher eV.irginia 1989 T.h eFolklor eo Mf altes eFossils P. aper si nMediterranea nSocial
Explor e6r(,5):4— f i2g6,ure cso,v iellrustration. Studie s1 2, :p9age sp4,lates.
Ray, Clayton E. 2001. "Prodromus." Geology and paleontology of the Lee Creek
Mine, North Carolina 90, 1–20. 
View This Item Online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/266340
Permalink: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/partpdf/351982
Holding Institution 
Smithsonian Libraries
Sponsored by 
Smithsonian Institution
Copyright & Reuse 
Copyright Status: In copyright. Digitized with the permission of the rights holder.
Rights Holder: Smithsonian Institution
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Rights: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/permissions
This document was created from content at the Biodiversity Heritage Library, the world's
largest open access digital library for biodiversity literature and archives. Visit BHL at 
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org.
This file was generated 27 May 2023 at 22:02 UTC