Beach Rambles in Search of Seaside Pebbles and Crystals: With Some Observations on the Origin of the Diamond and Other Precious StonesFrancis, John George
Science
Beach Rambles in Search of Seaside Pebbles and Crystals: With Some Observations on the Origin of the Diamond and Other Precious Stones
But there is no magic in Nature; and when we meet with undoubted
phenomena, however strange they may appear, in any department of her
realm, we must behave ourselves like matter-of-fact persons and set
about accounting for them logically. In a genuine petrifaction there
are two ways of doing this, or, in other words, there are two different
modes in which Nature may have acted so as to produce the result which
we are considering. One of these is that of a simple _substitution_; the
particles of one substance being gradually removed, and those of another
taking their place. This must have been the process which obtained in
many well-known instances: as, for example, when the thin, leathery shell
or husk of an echinus is found perfectly rendered, both as to its general
outline and minute markings, in solid flint or limestone. We feel quite
sure that the original husk has perished; but here is its second self.
The other mode is that of actual _transmutation_, wherein no part
of the original substance is destroyed or removed, but its physical
conditions undergo a total change, by means of either infiltration,
or crystallization, or perhaps both of them combined. This process
has obtained in such cases as a petrified shark’s tooth, or a fossil
trilobite from the Wenlock.
The tooth, which was once bone, is now a kind of metallic stone: the
trilobite once, as we suppose, shell and cartilage, is now a something
between limestone and cast-iron. And this change is very wonderful; but,
as was said above, there is no magic in it, no more than in the hardening
of an infant’s skull, or the solidifying of the arm and leg-bones by the
absorption of phosphate of lime. Besides, the stone and metal now present
are still something different from what we ordinarily mean by those
terms: the petrified tooth is not like a flint-stone, neither could you
cut horse-shoe nails out of the trilobite.
In fact, every _real_ process has a character of its own: a something
which distinguishes it from any other, despite of general resemblances up
to a certain point.
Petrifaction, then, being assumed, as an operation which has really taken
place after one way or another, it falls next to be considered, what
was the original nature of these fossils? I mean the objects which we
find thus preserved in our seaside pebbles. What was the department in
Creation to which they belonged? Was it _animal_ or _vegetable_ before it
thus became altogether _mineral_?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account