This article was downloaded by: [Universita Studi la Sapienza]On: 24 February 2014, At: 00:25Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Historical Biology: An International Journal ofPaleobiologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ghbi20

From petrified snakes, through giant ‘foraminifers’,to extinct cephalopods: the early history of ammonitestudies in the Italian peninsulaMarco Romanoa

a Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, “Sapienza” Università di Roma, P.le A. Moro 5, 00185Rome, ItalyPublished online: 21 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Marco Romano , Historical Biology (2014): From petrified snakes, through giant ‘foraminifers’, to extinctcephalopods: the early history of ammonite studies in the Italian peninsula, Historical Biology: An International Journal ofPaleobiology, DOI: 10.1080/08912963.2013.879866

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2013.879866

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

From petrified snakes, through giant ‘foraminifers’, to extinct cephalopods: the early history ofammonite studies in the Italian peninsula

Marco Romano*

Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, “Sapienza” Universita di Roma, P.le A. Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy

(Received 8 December 2013; accepted 30 December 2013)

As a result of their intrinsic beauty and relative abundance in some Mesozoic deposits, ammonites have always attracted theattention of scholars and curious people, with written testimonies that can be traced back to Pliny’s Naturalis Historiae of 75AD. The mysterious and evocative charm enclosed behind these extinct cephalopod has made its influence felt on legends,myths, necromancy, medicine, religion and literature, attracting the literary interest of authors such as Goethe, Scott, Schillerand Salgari. Of particular interest is the evolution of scientific thought and interpretations that, over time, have groped to finda place for these ‘difficult fossils’, suspended between the organic world and the stone. In the present work, I briefly discussthe history of the study of ammonites in the Italian peninsula, during the period between the sixteenth and the late nineteenthcenturies. Initially interpreted as petrified snakes, and believed for a long time to be ‘giant’ ancestors of living and extinctforaminifera, only in the nineteenth century, ammonites were definitively interpreted as extinct cephalopods, with therecognition of their crucial importance for biostratigraphy.

Keywords: ammonites; Cornu Ammonis; history of palaeontology; foraminifers

Proving all things and holding fast that which we believeto be true, let us look back with gratitude and pride to whathas been achieved by our forerunners in the race, andwhile we labour to emulate their devotion, let us hold highthe torch of science, and pass it on bright and burning tothose who shall receive it from our hands. (ArchibaldGeikie 1897, p. 289)

Introduction

The precious stone of Salagraman, that was nothing but apetrified shell, of the Ammon Horns genus, black in color,but that on the inside concealed a hat of Visnu, theconservator God of India, had been brought back in the bigpagoda of Karia, and probably already hidden in a closetknown only to the rajah, to his ministers and to the highpriest.

With these words, the famous Italian novelist Emilio

Salgari starts his 1907 novel The Conquest of an Empire,

the sixth volume of the Indo-Malayan cycle of the

legendary Sandokan give link to reference ‘Salgari

(2004)’. Around the stone of Salagraman – in reality (as

stated by Salgari himself) a fossil ammonite – rotates the

entire novel, clearly putting out the charm that ammonite

fossils arouse, and have always aroused, not only in the

purely scientific–naturalistic field. In addition to their

primary importance as biostratigraphic indicators of

extreme detail after the birth of stratigraphy (with the

monumental work of Arduino, Smith, Cuvier, Brongniart,

Brocchi and d’Orbigny), ammonites have always captured

the attention of scholars and laymen, both for the

abundance of their findings in some Mesozoic deposits

and for the intrinsic elegance and beauty that characterises

these fossil shells. Known by the archaic terms ‘Cornu

Ammonis’, ‘Corni di Ammone’ or ‘Cornammone’

(Ammon Horns) since the time of Naturalis Historiae of

Pliny the Elder dating back to about 75 AD (Sarti 1994,

2003a), ammonites have been associated in fact, as early as

the Palaeolithic, with legends, myths, religion and

necromancy in several and different parts of the world

(see also Nelson 1968). A classic example is the famous

‘Stone of Salagraman’ already mentioned above, sacred

object of veneration in India for the followers of the God

Vishnu. As reported by Ferrario (1829), the fossilised

‘Corni di Ammone’ would represent the incarnations of

Vishnu, and the nine species of ammonites recognised

would correspond to the nine different appearances of this

God.

Over time, fossil ammonoids found in abundance

(mainly in Mesozoic deposits) have received interpret-

ations than now seem absurd and fanciful. These fossils

have been interpreted as petrified snakes, worms or fish

bones rolled up in the shape of spiral, or as the result of

whirling motions induced by the influence of ‘celestial

bodies’. There are even those who claim to have seen these

objects born directly from the ground, and, after having

measured with a compass, watched them grow in size from

day to day.

The interpretation of ‘Cornu Ammonis’ as petrified

venomous snakes (‘ophites’), thanks to the miraculous

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

*Email: marco.romano@uniroma1.it

Historical Biology, 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2013.879866

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

intervention of saints or prayers addressed to them,

classically characterised English folklore since the

sixteenth century, with two main legends related to St

Kenya and to the Saxon abbess St Hilda (Nelson 1968).

The beauty and the mystery hidden behind these

petrified shells have attracted the literary interest of

important authors; besides Emilio Salgari already men-

tioned above, references to these fossil cephalopods are

found in the works of writers such as Scott, Schiller and

Goethe (Nelson 1968).

In the present work, I analyse the history and evolution

of scientific interpretation of these extinct cephalopods in

the Italian geological literature, starting with writings

dating back to the sixteenth century. The choice of early

Italian literature derives from the important role that Italy,

and especially Italian authors, played, from the sixteenth to

the late eighteenth centuries, in the intense debate about

the real nature of fossil remains as ‘lithified’ ex-vivi. The

study of ammonites – for that matter, of any fossil

organism in general – proves to be inextricably linked to

the interpretation of the stratified deposits containing

them, and, ultimately, to the processes and depositional

environments that led to the formation of such deposits.

The study and understanding – albeit embryonic – of

these processes, in turn, has a profound effect on the

interpretation of the general history of the Earth, on the

conception of a world changed in the course of time and on

the idea of rock antiquity and ‘deep time’. All these

aspects necessarily lead to a cascade of new inferences,

with a profound influence even on the social level, if one

considers the impact of the new geological discoveries on

the literal exegesis of the Holy Scriptures. For all the

above, in the analysis of the Italian authors treated in this

text – wherever possible – the geological interpretations

sensu lato of fossiliferous deposits and other issues of a

more general nature, such as the theories about the

possible disappearance or extinction of living species, will

be briefly reported. Starting around the second decade of

the nineteenth century (particularly after the split of the

genus Ammonites into numerous genera which began with

the work of Suess and Hyatt), the number of papers – also

by Italian authors – published on ammonites starts to be

very high, and it is therefore impossible to review total

census of all the contributions in this area of knowledge.

I thus give greater attention and space to the pioneering

Italian writings between the sixteenth and eighteenth

centuries, which are on the whole less known in other

countries, basically for a simple problem of linguistic

block.

Sixteenth century

This brief summary could not be started without the

kaleidoscope figure of Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), a

multifaceted genius who represents, as already pointed out

by Rodolico (1963), the perfect Renaissance fusion of the

aesthetic and scientific discoverer. Leonardo, an artist,

scientist and engineer, devotes several passages from his

works to the study of our planet and of earth sciences sensu

lato, dealing with the atmosphere, tides, geomorphology,

hydrogeology, tectonics, volcanism, palaeontology and

much more (see Baratta 1903; De Lorenzo 1920). With

regard to palaeontology, Leonardo not only correctly

interprets fossils as lithified organisms (an hypothesis

already present in Ristoro d’Arezzo and Giovanni

Boccaccio) but criticises the diluvial hypotheses (Codice

Atlantico, folio 155, recto b), demonstrating, with a

number of acutely reasoned arguments, the physical

impossibility for the flood waters to ‘go back’ to the tops of

the mountains (and carry shells and sediment there). For

Leonardo, the fact of finding shells of organisms of all ages

and sizes, often buried in their vital position, is

indisputable evidence that the sea (specifically the

Mediterranean according to the scientist) had once covered

all the lowlands of Italy, then, overcoming, as already

pointed out by Vai (2003a), almost four centuries of

disputes and debates on diluvialism and the origin of

fossils. Leonardo speaks of ammonites of Veronese

mountains in the code Hammer, folio 9 (see Baratta

1903; Sarti 1993, for the original text by Leonardo),

where, in addition to properly recognising these fossils as

lithified remains of organisms, he describes the difference

between ammonites preserved as internal casts and

ammonites characterised by an external shell (see also

Sarti 1993). Thus, the fossils such as ammonites (extinct,

without clear existing analogues) which put in difficulty

authors such as Martin Lister, do not seem in any way to

embarrass Leonardo, who, according to De Lorenzo

(1920, p. 1), ‘in the study of the evolution of the Earth

stands alone and giant within his age, without the

teachings of old or recent teachers, in the light of its

experience’.

Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522–1605) reports several speci-

mens of ammonites in his Musaeum Metallicum, which

saw the light only in 1648. Aldrovandi figured in his work

a specimen of ‘Ophiomorphites’, actually referable to the

species Stephanoceras bayleanus (Foresti 1887; Sarti

2003a). The author describes the structure of the object,

characterised by spire and by a kind of rays (in reality the

ribs of ornamentation), and detects a general resemblance

to a snake, to which the name ‘Ophiomorphites’ refers

(Sarti 1994). On page 54 of the Musaeum Metallicum are

figured two pyritised ammonites (Figure 1), subsequently

attributed by Foresti (1887) to the species Harpoceras

radians Neumayr, 1875 and Phylloceras doderleinianum

Neumayr, 1875. Another specimen of ammonite is

represented on page 56 of the work, but according to

Foresti (1887) it cannot be identified with certainty, while

the specimens depicted on page 144 (Figure 2) would be

2 M. Romano

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

attributable to Harpoceras serpentinum Neumayr, 1875

and doubtfully to Lytoceras (Foresti 1887). The funda-

mental importance of Aldrovandi’s work is represented by

the transition from the collection of a mere amateur to the

establishment of the natural history museum as a public

structure (Vai 2003b; Vai and Cavazza 2006). Further-

more, as already pointed out by Sarti (1994), it must be

emphasised that Aldrovanti is the first author to define

these extinct cephalopods with the modern term

ammonites, a notable fact if one considers that the archaic

term ‘Cornu Ammonis’ is still found in the Italian writings

of the mid-nineteenth century.

Francesco Calzolari (1522–1609), as reported by

Brocchi (1814), as early as 1571 prepared in Verona a

museum of natural history, which was illustrated and

published for the first time in 1584 by the physician from

Cremona G.B. Olivi. Among the objects depicted and

described are specimens of ammonites; however, the

fossils are still regarded as mere jokes of nature (‘lusus

naturae’).

In 1574, Michele Mercati (1541–1593) organises the

famous Metallotheca Vaticana, which, however, sees light

only after almost a century and a half, at the hands of

Lancisi under Pope Clemente XI (Accordi 1980). As stated

by Zittel (1901, p. 16), ‘Michele Mercati prepared good

illustrations of fossil bivalves, ammonites, and nummulites

in the museum of Pope Sixtus V.’ Mercati then describes

and figures ammonite fossils in his work (Figure 3);

however, he fully embraces the inorganic interpretation of

fossils, thus representing a real setback with respect to the

pioneering and correct hypothesis previously formulated

by Leonardo da Vinci. In his masterpiece of 1814, Brocchi

states that it is amazing how Mercati, despite having

described in detail a large number of fossil shells, did not

grasp the real provenance of these objects, assigning their

formation to the influence of ‘celestial bodies’ (vis

formativa, a concept inherited from Aristotle according to

Accordi 1980). Mercati treats the fossils in the ‘Closet IX’

of his museum, with the generic term ‘Lapides

idiomorphoi’ (stones equipped with proper shape) and

discussing their inorganic origin claims: ‘With respect to

living objects, in the fossil ones nature also removed or

Figure 2. Ammonites figured at page 144 of MusaeumMetallicum (Aldrovandi). The two specimens were subsequentlyascribed by Foresti (1887) to the speciesH. serpentinum (specimenat the top) and doubtfully to the genus Lytoceras (specimen at thebottom).

Figure 1. Ammonites figured by Aldrovandi on page 54 of hisMusaeum Metallicum. The two specimens were subsequentlyascribed by Foresti (1887) to the species H. radians (specimen atthe top) and P. doderleinianum (specimen at the bottom).

Historical Biology 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

added some parts, or brought variants: so to the Ophioids

removed the head, surrounded with leaves the Corna di

Ammone . . . ’ (original text in Accordi 1980, p. 16). The

ammonites are therefore considered as stones which

simulate the shape of a snake without head, while the

philloceratitic sutures that characterise some specimens

observed by Mercati are interpreted as embellishments

made by nature using a leaf pattern.

We find references to ammonites even in the writings

of the great Neapolitan naturalist Ferrante Imperato

(1550–1631), who mentioned these fossils his Historia

Naturale. In his work, Imperato does not use fanciful

assumptions to explain the presence of fossils in the hills

and high mountains, and correctly inferred that the sea did

not always remain in its current location over the centuries.

In fact, Imperato (1672, p. 172) states:

therefore the boundaries of the land and the sea change,and this is not always this place land, and this sea; butarrives the sea, where it was land, and becomes land,where the sea was. Which occurs over the centuries inorder, and circle.

For the Neapolitan naturalist, fossils are undoubtedly

lithified remains of ex-vivi, thus reaching through field

observation and reasoning a conclusion attained in other

European countries only at the end of the eighteenth

century (Lyell 1830; Vai 2003a). In his work Imperato

(1672, p. 582) figures a fossil conical in shape and

characterised by horizontal streaks, defined as ‘Corno di

Ammone’, which, however, probably represents a rudist

(Figure 4). Then, Imperato briefly mentions the ‘typical

Corni di Ammone’ stating (1672, p. 582) that ‘their

principle is generally from forms of snails, retaining such

forms, according to the different occasions, some blankets

from their cortex other uncovered’.

Seventeenth century

In 1622, a second illustration of theMuseum Calceolarium

started by Benedetto Ceruti and completed by Chiocco

(Brocchi 1814) was published. The museum set up by

Francesco Calzolari the elder, and subsequently curated by

his nephew Francesco Calzolari junior, represented, for

several decades, one of the most important museums of

Europe (see Accordi 1977). Ceruti attributes a completely

inorganic origin to fossils, and even the ‘Glossopetre’ that

had long been treated by Fabio Colonna and correctly

interpreted as shark teeth as done also by Aldrovandi (Vai

and Cavazza 2006, p. 56), are considered by Ceruti as

simple ‘whims of nature’. In the chapter which deals with

fossilisation and the origin of fossils, Chiocco reports three

possible theories: that of the ‘lapidifying juice’ already

present in Agricola, that of ‘aura seminalis’ and a third that

calls for the withdrawal of the seas and deposition of

Figure 3. Ammonites represented by Lancisi in the illustrationof the Metallotheca Vaticana of Michele Mercati (1719, p. 310).Mercati still sustained an inorganic origin of fossils, attributingtheir formation to the influence of ‘celestial bodies’. The figuredammonites probably represent the genus Hildoceras (1),Mercaticeras (2), Dactylioceras (3), Phylloceras (bottom left)and Calliphylloceras (bottom centre and right).

Figure 4. Specimen figured by Imperato in his HistoriaNaturale (p. 582) and erroneously attributed to a ‘Corno diAmmone’. Most likely the figure represents a specimen of rudist.

4 M. Romano

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

marine organisms, already present in Cesalpino and

Aristotle (Accordi 1977). As reported by Accordi (1977),

Chiocco impartially exposes the three theories, without

siding with one or the other. In the portion of the work

curated by Chiocco, some ammonites are figured and

described, which, however, were interpreted by the author

as petrified snakes. In the original text it reads: ‘Snake

turned to stone, by a whim of fate broken into two by its

very fast crawl, a thing without a doubt beautiful to behold,

and admirable’ (translation from Latin in Sarti 1994).

Francesco Stelluti (1577–1653), member of the

Accademia dei Lincei, published in 1637 a treatise on

fossil wood of Umbria where he states that both the fossil

wood and ammonites are actually the result of alteration of

clay by the work of underground heat and sulphurous

waters. Brocchi (1814) harshly criticised these assump-

tions and expressed surprise at how such nonsense could

have been formulated by a member of such a prestigious

academy, which had expressly ruled against the reigning

theory of spontaneous generation, and which routinely

used the microscope to investigate the inner structure of

analysed objects.

In 1656, Lodovico Moscardo published a ponderous

illustration of his museum, a real encyclopaedic work

where, in addition to the natural sciences, exhibits of

archaeology, numismatics, music, painting and many other

arts and sciences are treated and depicted. In the Second

Book, which deals with the fossil specimens preserved in

the museum, the author briefly discusses the different

interpretations of fossils and fully embraces the hypothesis

of Fracastoro, then properly considering the fossils as

ex-vivi. Just like this author, Moscardo rejects both the

theory of the Great Flood, and the hypothesis that these

bodies may have been born and brought up directly

between the deposits of the mountains, correctly accepting

the possibility that the sea once covered large tracts of now

emerged land. Moscardo (1656, p. 174) states:

that those animals, and many other things, which are seenscattered in the mountains, have been once true, andnatural of sea: But, that subsequently, due to therevolutions of the water has been mixed up earth, waterand animals, and that with the length of time they [refers tomarine bodies ] are massed, and lithified.

Moscardo illustrates two ammonites (Figure 5) present in

the museum, although he interpreted them as specimens of

petrified snakes. In the description that accompanies the

Figure (p. 178 of the original text), the author in fact

writes: ‘Likewise, my museum is adorned by snakes of

various species, converted into very hard stone, which

retain their natural horrid look.’ This erroneous interpret-

ation of ammonites, which, as seen above, is also found in

the description of Museum Calceolario (part of the work

curated by Chiocco), highlights the difficulty in the

interpretation of some kinds of fossils (especially those

lacking clear modern analogues), even when they are

correctly understood as petrified objects of organic origin.

‘The vain speculation disillusioned by the sense,

response letter concerning the marine remains, which are

found petrified in various terrestrial places’ (1670) of the

Italian painter Agostino Scilla represents a fundamental

work for the birth and development of palaeontology. For

the first time, an author compiled an enormous body of

evidence, well reasoned and convincing, in favour of the

organic nature of fossils found on hills and mountains

(Accordi 1978; Romano 2013). However, in all his work,

Scilla never refers to the ammonites, which is remarkable

in view of the popularity of such fossils and the fact that

ammonites are described and figured in the works of

Colonna, Aldrovandi, Michele Mercati and Imperato, all

texts that the Italian painter knew deeply and mentioned

several times in his work. This peculiar ‘gap’ has basically

two main explanations. First, the painter repeatedly

expresses the intent to analyse and discuss only those

fossils he personally collected and studied. He says in fact:

‘to have enjoyed and observed many courtesies in the

jewels or stones of Nature painted in many Galleries, and

Figure 5. Ammonites represented in the illustration of theMuseo Moscardo (p. 178). Moscardo assigns an organic origin tothe ammonites, however, considering them as petrified snakes.

Historical Biology 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

then hearing the reports – or to put it better, the

exaggerations – I still have fair reason to trust the words of

nobody’ (Agostino Scilla 1670, p. 49). All the fossils

directly collected and analysed by Scilla come from

Cenozoic deposits in the hills of Messina, and thus the

absence of ammonites in these sediments very likely

seems to the author an excuse to not treat such fossils in his

work. However, the most likely explanation is kept

sagaciously hidden by the author and is probably deeply

connected to the assumptions formulated by Scilla and to

the evidence he uses in favour of this hypothesis. One of

the key pieces of evidence used by Scilla to demonstrate

the organic origin of fossils is the recognition of the

complete correspondence between the shells collected on

the mountains and living species that can be studied in the

seas today. Fossil ammonites that are found in the

mountains, on the other hand, seem to have no comparable

living forms, and thus represent an example of the so-

called ‘problematic fossil’ (Rudwick 1972; Morello 2003).

Taking also into account the fixist concept of species that

would stand as a dogma until the second half of the

nineteenth century – species are not created or destroyed,

hence all fossils found on mountains and hills must

necessarily have living marine counterparts – it is clear

that ammonites represented a major obstacle for the

hypothesis of Agostino Scilla. The recognition of such

fossil that do not have present analogues could in fact lend

support to theories still very much in vogue on the

inorganic origin of fossils, which thus could be interpreted

as mere freaks of nature (indeed, it is precisely the

‘difficult’ fossils, e.g. ammonites, that led authors such as

Martin Lister to reject the organic origin, preferring a

growth directly in situ; see also Rudwick 1972). It is

therefore much more likely that, for this second reason,

Scilla cunningly avoided discussing ammonites in his

work, limiting himself to treating the Cenozoic fossils with

living representatives, in which, very often, the ‘original

shell’ is still preserved.

Paolo Silvio Boccone (1633–1704) was a great

Sicilian naturalist and botanist characterised by Accordi

(1975, p. 354) as ‘A man of an exceptional freedom of

thought, absolutely detached from any whatsoever

academism.’ Boccone is a staunch supporter of the

organic nature of fossils and in his work he rails, often with

a peculiar humour, against the numerous supporters of

inorganic origin (even defining them ‘idiots’) and against

the magic power that was attributed by some to particular

types of rocks. In his work of 1684, the author criticises the

theory accepted by several naturalists (e.g. Edward

Lhwyd), according to which fossils represent the remains

of organisms that lived directly in the mountains and hills.

According to Boccone, this assumption is completely

unacceptable:

because in the ground so far have not been found oysters,

nor particular Shells of the maritime Kingdom, with living

animal in middle of the ground, and, therefore . . . I judge

that all of these bodies are transported by sea in the

mountains, and in the bowels of the Earth due to some

revolution. (1684, p. 165)

The best-known work of Boccone is ‘Recherches et

Observations Naturelles’ first published in Paris in 1674.

The work is organised as an epistolary collection, where

the author imagined to send and receive letters by different

authoritative naturalists, both Italian and foreign (Accordi

1975). In the 28th letter, ideally addressed to Magnol,

Haguenot, Nissole, Beausostez, Rideu and Ricou, the

author speaks also of ammonites, defined by the

expressions ‘Corne d’Ammone’ or ‘Corne de Belier’.

According to the Sicilian naturalist, these fossils represent

models (internal) such as the ‘Bugardie’ described by

Ferrante Imperato and also treated in Agostino Scilla

(Romano 2013), while the original shells of organisms

must have ‘calcined’ or ‘pulverised’. The ammonites are

thus correctly interpreted as the remains of once-living

organisms, and the mode of preservation is correctly

understood as representation by internal model (or cast),

that typically characterises most of these fossil in the

Apennines (in fact the outer shell, where present, is clearly

a pseudo-shell, formed by secondary precipitation largely

of calcium carbonate).

Eighteenth century

In 1709, the Jesuit Filippo Bonanni illustrates the

Musaeum Kircherianum, organised in Rome by the Jesuit

Athanasius Kircher. In addition to exhibits of the natural

sciences, the extensive museum also contained archae-

ological, artistic and ethnographic materials which are

figured in the illustration of Bonanni. As already pointed

out by Accordi (1976), the hypotheses and discussion of

Bonanni about the fossils and their origin are decidedly

confused, and even if he cites the theories of Fracastoro,

the author seems to ultimately believe in the ‘lapidifying

juice’ (with the exception of ‘Glossopetre’ that are too

similar to the teeth of living sharks to permit their having

inorganic origin). Bonanni depicts an ammonite in plate

LXV of Musaeum Kircherianum (p. 224), however, in the

text discusses very briefly the ‘Cornu Ammonis’, basically

only reporting the well-known writings of Pliny, Agricola

and Imperato. Accordi (1976, p. 125) writes with regard to

the entire works:

Father Bonanni, in conclusion, was a tireless worker and

had the merit to leave us the illustration of the Kircher

museum; but for its still medieval mentality, due to

excessive religious qualms gave to the Science, in fact, a

very limited contribution.

6 M. Romano

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

Antonio Vallisneri (1661–1730) represents a funda-

mental author for the early history of geology, and not only

in Italian earth sciences scenario. As already found in part

in the work of Agostino Scilla, Vallisneri (1721)

admirably discusses the different possible modes of

fossilisation, and in the third category – which clearly

refers to the internal moulds – also includes the ‘Corni

d’Ammone’, correctly recognising the absence of the shell

in most of the specimens referable to such fossil

cephalopods. Aside from this brief reference to the

ammonites, Vallisneri no longer mentions such fossils

in the rest of his work. It is likely that, as in the case of

Scilla, the ammonites represent ‘inconvenient fossils’ as

there is no known present analogue (see also Luzzini

2009). In fact, even in Vallisneri, the fixist concept of

species is strongly dogmatic and rooted as it is clear in the

affirmation (1721, p. 50), ‘We see the same plants, and the

same herbs that were already present before the Flood,

greening above the Earth having lost nothing of creation,

nor anything created anew.’ So, even if the Italian author

bravely challenges different parts of the Holy Scriptures

and their interpretation (such as the possibility of bringing

all the insects and all the plants on the Ark, as well as all

food resources and the habitats for this enormous number

of insect species), he seems to want to avoid problems,

perhaps insurmountable, raised by the presence of fossils

(such as the ammonites) that lack living equivalents. In

several passages, in fact, the author states that even the

largest climate change can vary only the incidental

qualities of species and can in no case alter their ‘essence’.

In some way, the possibility of extinctions directly

undermined the Christian doctrine of providence (Rud-

wick 1972), representing therefore a note of discord and

imperfection in God’s Creation.

Brocchi (1814) reports that, in the first half of the

eighteenth century (1711 according to Zittel 1901),

Bartolomeo Beccari began to study tiny shells that could

only be observed under the microscope ‘and presented for

the first essay that little nautilus almost imperceptible to

the naked eye, that Linnaeus then distinguished by the

name of its discoverer (Nautilus Beccarii)’ (1814, p. XXXI

of ‘Discorso sui progressi dello studio della conchiologia

fossile in Italia’ In: ‘Conchiologia Fossile Subapennina’).

Beccari analysed in detail the outer and inner structure of

the shell, recognising the concamerations and the coiled

structure, and attributed these organisms to microscopic

‘Corni di Ammone’. With this analysis at microscope

probably begins – at least on the Italian scene – the

enduring confusion between cephalopods and foramini-

fera, destined to continue until the fundamental work of

Alcide d’Orbigny (see ‘Discussion’ section).

Another figure that deserves to be mentioned is

Giovanni Giacomo Spada, pastor of Grezzana. In his work

of 1737, Spada harshly criticises, by means of acute

reasoning, the theory that explains montane occurrences of

marine shells via the Great Flood. For example, Spada

(1737, p. 6) states

the flux and reflux shocked Sea, can confusedly send in dryplace those Crustaceans of light nature, but cannotseparate from her nest the heavy shells, nor from its centerthe ponderous Coral: so the waves of the overflowing Seawho came to overcome the Alpine peaks of the World,brought to the surface, in a confused manner, only the mostagile and lightweight

and again (1737, p. 15)

then we are obliged to judge, that these (marine bodies)have not been conducted in such places by any violent rushof water; but here generated, and born naturally; fromwhich it is inferred not to be Diluvial memories, as manybelieve, but infallible signs that the Sea rested for centuriesuntil those boundaries in which they are (the fossilremains), and then with the whole reason must be calledAntediluvial (i.e. most ancient of the Noah’s Deluge).

Spada speaks in his work of ‘Cornu Ammonis’ found in

abundance in the mountains of Verona, dividing them

according to their shapes into types ‘Virgati’, ‘Nodosi’,

‘Laeves’ and ‘Foliacei’ (Furrowed, Knotted, Smooth and

Foliaceous), and according to their sizes into the

categories ‘Parvuli’, ‘Medij’, ‘Maiores’ and ‘Maximi’

(Small, Medium, Major and Maximum). Although

equivalent living marine organisms had not been found

in his time, Spada argues that the organisation of these

fossil leaves no doubt that they represent petrified marine

bodies, inviting the dubious reader to break up one ‘Corno

di Ammone’ in order to observe the internal camerate

structure ‘in the guise of Cochlea’ (1737, p. 12). This is an

instructive example showing that inference based on

empirical observation was of priority importance in the

Bolognese Italian school of the eighteenth century

compared with blind acceptance of religious dogma,

even in the case of a man of the church such as Spada (see

also Vai 2003a).

In 1739, the famous De conchis minus notis by

Giovanni Bianchi (known by the pseudonym Jaco Planco

in some texts) was published, wherein the author reports

and describes numerous micro foraminifera that are found

in abundance on the shoreline of Rimini. The author

criticises the theories of Woodward, who believed these

tiny shells to be productions of chance or ‘freaks of

nature’, and instead interprets them largely as opercula of

other ‘testaceans’ (‘shell-bearing organisms’) and assigns

them the name ‘Corni di Ammone’ (Figure 6). With

Bianchi, then, is fed and carried forward the erroneous

interpretation of foraminifera as microscopic specimens of

ammonites, started in Italy almost three decades earlier

with the studies of Beccari. Michelotti (1841) is quite

critical of the work of Bianchi, stating that his text ‘leaves

a lot to be desired’; nevertheless Bianchi had the merit,

before the works of Soldani, to make known the abundance

Historical Biology 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

of these micro-organisms both in actual seas and fossil

(Michelotti 1841; Capellini 1897).

In his work of 1739, Gregorio Piccoli Del Faggiol

states that the ‘Corni di Ammone’, still considered among

the crustaceans and defined by the generic term

‘testaceans’, should be considered in every way lithified

marine organisms, both owing to anatomical structure and

to their occurrence in the embedding rock strata. As the

author states (1739, p. 4) the ‘Corni di Ammone’

‘absolutely are not jokes, nor sport of bizarre nature.

Because if they really were such, [they] would be found

also in many other places, where [there] are strata of

beautiful stone and marble . . . .’ The author fully

understands the difficulty in finding an explanation about

the ‘invasion’ and withdrawal of the sea from the hills and

mountains and to explain the orderly distribution of beds

and of ammonites contained in them; not attempting a bold

explanation for these facts, Piccoli states that they cannot

be interpreted ‘without a particular divine operate in the

creation’ (1739, p. 4). According to the author, then, it is

‘dangerous’ to judge whether these bodies are to be

regarded as diluvian or antediluvian, and the orderly

organisation of the various rocks and fossil cannot be

explained ‘without a miraculous divine Prodigy’ (1739,

p. 4). It therefore appears that, despite the careful

observations not only of the ammonite structures but

also of sedimentary deposits that contain them, and the

correct reading of fossils as organisms that once lived in

the sea, the totally religious interpretations of Gregorio

Piccoli about the geological processes seem to represent a

Figure 6. Foraminifera of Rimini’s seaside figured by Bianchi (1739, Table I) and attributed by the author to microscopic specimens of‘Cornu Hammonis’. With the work of Bianchi is fuelled the confusion between foraminifera and ammonites, started in Italy with thestudies of Beccari in 1711.

8 M. Romano

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

real step back with respect to achievements reached by

Vallisneri, Spada and (about two centuries before) by the

genius of Leonardo.

Another author who absolutely deserves to be

mentioned is Anton Lazzaro Moro and his work dating

from 1740 De’ crostacei e degli altri marini corpi che si

truovano su’ monti (Of crustaceans and other marine

bodies that are found on mountains). The author is firmly

convinced that fossils represent the remains of lithified but

once-living marine organisms, and is primarily concerned

with investigating the possible processes that led to these

puzzling geologic occurrences. Moro is contrary to the

hypothesis of the Noah’s Deluge and is highly critical of

the theories of Burnet, stating that the systems proposed by

the latter ‘lack not only of philosophical probability, but

even the plausibility, that is required in the poetic

inventions’ (1740, p. 24). He also criticises the system of

Woodward and the diluvialistic interpretation of the

English author. According to Woodward, the fossils must

have been left by the withdrawal of waters of Noah’s

Deluge in accordance with their weight, and it therefore

follows that the lightest bodies should be located in the

upper beds. Moro says that it is sufficient to directly

observe the organisation of deposits which constitute the

hills and mountains, to realise that the fossils of greater

size and weight are not at all confined to the lower strata;

frequently, the author notes, the smaller and lighter fossils

are located in the lower beds of the mountains. Among

these fossils he also mentions the ‘Corni di Ammone’ ‘of

all sizes’ (1740, p. 153), thus demonstrating a correct

interpretation of these remains as shells of organisms that

once lived in the sea. The critique of Woodward ends with

a harsh sentence in which Moro states that ‘it is clear now

more than the sundial light, that the whole machine of

Mr Woodward, is nothing but pure imaginary and absurd

fiction’ (1740, p. 174). The author provides theories to

explain the presence of marine bodies on the mountains,

assuming that the fossil organisms lived on the quiet

seabed of seas and oceans and that only later were ‘pulled’

to such heights concomitant with the lifting of the

mountains from the sea (Figure 7). This hypothesis, which

sees in the action of ‘underground fires’ the cause of the

mountain uplift, constitutes a real step forward for the

correct interpretation about the formation of mountain

belts, and later would represent the bulwark of the

‘Plutonist’ School – as opposed to the Neptunist School

headed by Werner – that will find its maximum exposure

and completeness in Hutton and in the reorganisation of

his work that was admirably accomplished by Playfair (as

reported by Brocchi 1814, influence of volcanic explosions

on marine remains found in the hills had in fact already

been formulated by Simone Majoli in 1597, in his work

Dies caniculares). In the text, Moro cites the work of

Giovanni Bianchi De Conchis minus notis and praises the

study conducted by the Italian naturalist, characterising it

as: ‘work described with exquisite care, and worthy of

being imitated by many’ (1740, p. 360). Lazzaro Moro

willingly accepts the interpretation of microscopic

foraminifera as specimens of tiny ammonites. According

to the author, it is simply sufficient that ‘a fire’ lights below

these present shores crammed with ‘Horns of Ammon’, to

bring those bodies and sediments in which they are

contained outside of the water, up to form green hills or

mountains. In this way, according to Moro, must be

explained the large number of ammonites that are found

lithified in limestone beds, even in the highest mountains.

In addition, for Lazzaro Moro, the discovery made by

Bianchi is a key piece of evidence in demonstrating that

the Horns of Ammon found on mountains are not just

freaks of nature – as several authors believed – but

actually the remains of marine organisms that ‘currently

live in abundance in the Italian coastal zone’, although

microscopic in size. In this way, therefore, the hypothesis

of Moro seems to overcome the obstacle that probably

brought Agostino Scilla to disregard ammonites in his

fundamental work, having now found a living equivalent.

In the Novelle letterarie pubblicate in Firenze

(Literary novels published in Florence, directed and

largely compiled by Giovanni Lami) of 1740, a comment

to the work of Giovanni Bianchi on microscopic ‘Corni di

Ammone’ from the sands of Rimini (Emilia-Romagna,

Italy) is found. The author praises the work of Bianchi, as

no naturalist up to that time had found ‘ammonites’ alive

in the seas and oceans. However, the author correctly states

that many specimens of ammonites from the mountain

deposits appear to be very large, with overall dimensions

never found in the extant ‘Corni di Ammone’ that are

found in coastal sands. Once again, embracing the fixist

conception of species, the author states that these large

organisms probably lived in the deep ocean. In this respect,

he used the same explanation forwarded by Scilla to

explain the presence of gigantic shark teeth (see Romano

2013).

Giovanni Bianchi continued the study of organisms

under the microscope and, in 1742, sent a letter to Breyn

(Brocchi 1814), in which he informs the naturalist that he

has found, approximately one mile away from Siena, the

microscopic ‘Corni di Ammone’ (actually foraminifers)

previously observed on the beaches of Livorno and

Rimini. He also added a description of ‘straight horns of

Ammon’, then called orthocerids by Breyn.

The absence of ammonites, not only from the present

coasts but also from deposits otherwise extremely rich in

fossil remains (Cenozoic deposits), was subsequently

noted and emphasised by Giuseppe Baldassarri in his

Osservazioni sopra il sale della creta, con un saggio di

produzioni naturali dello stato Sanese (Observations on

the salt of the clay, with an essay of natural productions

of the Sienese state), published in 1750a. The

conformation of the deposits and the arrangement and

Historical Biology 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

order of the collected fossils lead the author to state that

‘these hills did not exist in the beginning of the World,

but were produced in the course of time with the

subsequent superposition of one bed to another’ (1750,

p. 6). The author says he does not want to enter into the

debate as to whether these fossils are attributable to

Noah’s Deluge or whether the sea actually was once

present in those areas. A key observation of Baldassari is

that the fossil species he collected and analysed do not

seem in any way to be confusingly massed in the beds,

‘but rather arranged in order, and each separated

from the other with regulated division’ (1750, p. 6).

The author recognises more than 100 species; however,

among the fossils collected, there is not a single

‘cephalopod’(called ‘Politalami’ according to the

terminology of the time) which ‘abound’ in other

deposits. However, being still far from the conception

that species may go extinct and new species may appear

in the course of geological time, the acute observation

made by the author failed to result in a stratigraphical

reading of analysed deposits.

Also in 1750b, Baldassari compiled a catalogue of

fossils and minerals from the Senese area (Toscana, Italy),

preserved in the museum of the Knight Giovanni Venturi

Gallerani. In the text, the author provides a brief

description of the general structure of the ‘Corni di

Ammone’ and is convinced that these objects must be

referred to the class of petrified marine bodies. The

problem that remains unsolved, according to the author, is

the true origin of these lithified shells. He reports two main

interpretations formulated at that time. According to a first

interpretation, the ‘Corni di Ammone’ are nothing more

Figure 7. Genuine geological sections reported by Lazzaro Moro in his work from 1740. The arrangement of the strata strongly tiltedand folded (represented admirably by the author) has led Moro to hypothesise a lifting of mountains and hills (at the hands of‘underground fires’ in the words of the author) after the deposition and solidification of sedimentary deposits.

10 M. Romano

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

than petrified Indian Nautilus shells. The author quotes

M. Fontenelle, who explained the large numbers of fossils

in France, England, Germany and Italy by invoking a far

greater ‘Sea of India’ that once covered the whole of

Europe. According to other authors, the ‘Corni di

Ammone’ appear to be significantly different from Indian

Nautilus in numerous features of the shell structure (both

internal and external), but they do not provide any

hypothesis about the position that ammonites should

occupy in the classification systems of living organisms

accepted at the time.

Giuseppe Monti (1682–1760), naturalist of the

‘Accademia delle Scienze di Bologna’, can be considered,

together with Luigi Ferdinando Marsili, a direct spiritual

heir of Ulisse Aldrovandi (Sarti 2003a). As reported by

Sarti (2003b), Monti organised the Museum Diluvianum,

which represents the oldest public palaeontological

museum in Europe. Among the many exhibits in the

museum are 64 specimens of ammonites, accompanied by

very accurate descriptions, with the use of the most

advanced classification of the eighteenth century, rep-

resented by that of Scheuchzer in 1717 (Sarti 1994,

2003b). According to Sarti (2003b), Monti is the first

author to introduce in Italy this classification, from which

would originate all subsequent ammonite classifications

(see also Sarti 1994 for the interesting epistolary exchange

on ammonites between Monti and Giacinto Vogli between

1721 and 1723).

Targioni Tozzetti in his Relazioni d’alcuni viaggi fatti

in diverse parti della Toscana per osservare le produzioni

naturali, e gli antichi monumenti di essa (Relations of

some travels in different parts of Tuscany to observe the

natural productions, and its ancient monuments) of 1768

describes in detail the so-called ‘Lenticolarie’, ‘Frumen-

tarie’ and ‘Numismatic’ stones that clearly represent

macroforaminifer limestones, and continues to accept the

interpretation of the foraminifers as microscopic speci-

mens of ‘Corni di Ammone’. Tozzetti states:

Once observed under the microscope, these lentils show aprodigious variety of tiny Nautili, and Horns of Ammon,among which are easily all found those that have beendescribed and represented by Mr Gio. Bianchi, in his bookDe Conchis minus noti. (1768, p. 279)

A very brief note about the ammonites is given by

Annibale Bastiani in his work of 1770 on the analysis of

mineral waters of ‘Bagni di S. Casciano’ (Siena, Tuscany,

Italy). In describing the general layout of the area

surrounding the Baths, the author uses the subdivisions

into Primary and Secondary Mountains, introduced by

Arduino, and speaking of the Tertiary (Cenozoic) clays

notices and underlines the fact that the various fossils

found (mostly gastropods and bivalves) are not randomly

enclosed in sediments, but to each particular level or clay

layer corresponds a particular fossil species. The author

quotes quickly the ammonites, defined ‘Elmintoliti’,

‘Nautili Compressi’ (compressed Nautili) or ‘Corni di

Ammone’ ‘that are collected even among the stones of the

River, that just below the city walls surrounds the Village’

(p. 8). In the notes, the author claims to be able to

recognise as many as 20 species of ‘Corni di Ammone’,

while 16 were identified by Micheli, 50 by Bourguet and

nearly 100 by de Iussiu. Therefore, Bastiani states that

‘one may conjecture that as many species may be found in

this countryside, and places mentioned, if someone would

like to make excavations’ (p. 8).

In 1775, Della storia de’ fossili dell’agro pesarese, e

d’altri luoghi vicini (On the history of fossils of pesarese

land, and other neighbouring places) was published by the

abbot Giambattista Passeri. The abbot describes that he

started to become interested in fossils (Testaceans in the

words of the author) during a horse ride when he was only

a child. He asked his father what the shells were, and he

replied ‘that they were shells of marine Testaceans, in that

place from immemorial time remained dry in their own

nest’ (1775, p. 11). The author considers absolutely the

fossils as the remains of ex-vivi organisms, and following

the tradition started by Lazzaro Moro, suggests that once

the sea had to cover the whole area of Italy and that the

mountains – in which these remains are found – must

have been formed after sediment deposition, under the

influence (he says) of ‘winds’ and of ‘underground fires’.

In addition, he seems to have grasped in its full extent the

concept of ‘deep time’, reconstructing the processes and

therefore the time required by the deposition of marine

bodies, formation of sedimentary deposits, lifting of the

latter to form mountains and finally the erosional incision

made by rivers. With regard to the ammonites, Passeri

reported the criticisms of Elia Beltrand, a member of the

Royal Academy of Berlin, who (in 1752) cast continued

doubt as to the organic origin of fossils. In particular,

Beltrand questions how gigantic ammonites found in the

mountains could be comparable to the microscopic ‘Corni

di Ammone’ (actually foraminifers) found in the coastal

zone. According to Beltrand, the absence of large marine

ammonites demonstrates the inorganic origin of such

fossils. The answers to these objections by the Abbot

Passeri are somewhat fanciful but agree with the fixist

conception of species and the hypothesis of a single

creation by the Divine Creator. In particular, the reasons

for this absence, according to Passeri,

should be referred to the solitary nature of these species ofliving beings, who have, by instinct, to live compressedinto the deepest caves of the Sea, and that not havingorgans to move from that site, where initially have beenattacked their eggs, can never be seen, except that in verysmall size, when they have not even so much gluten, whichis sufficient to withstand the shock of storms, that chosenfrom their matrix, shuffled them (the little shells) withsand, and then spreads out them on the beach. (1775, p. 74)

Historical Biology 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

He continues on by stating:

I do not wonder of tiny Horns of Ammon, because theyrepresent the first eggs produced by the Mother, which aregrowing little by little up to enormous sizes . . . Therefore,these animals are not jokes, but they have their gradationof mole according to the greater or less age.

The acceptance of the dogma of a single creation is clearly

explained later on in the text when, in connection with the

impossibility of finding ammonites in seas today, Passeri

states:

The not finding of this race in any sea in our time, has ledsome to doubt, that despite the divine blessing given to allspecies created, this has been lost. But little religious itseems to me this opinion, and I would rather say, that thisclass of marine living beings is hiding in very deep andhidden places. (1775, p. 252)

The author still makes mention of ammonites when he

discusses the fossilisation of marine bodies. According

to Passeri, the differences in the type of fossilisation,

in substance and colour, are mere accidents due to the

particular place and context of fossilisation (a solution

already proposed by Agostino Scilla; see Romano

2013) and in no case may cast doubt on the

interpretation of fossils as organisms ex-vivi. Thus,

for example, in the red rocks of the Gubbio mountains

(Umbria, Italy) are found red Horn of Ammons,

‘because soaked of that same substance of red stone of

which are composed largely the beds of those

mountains when it was still liquid’ (1775, p. 239).

By contrast, continues the author, in the Furlo area

(Marche, Central Italy) the ‘Corni di Ammone’ have a

characteristic white colour, while in the ‘red marble’ in

Verona they take on a yellow and dark red colour, i.e.

the same colour as the sediments in which they are

incorporated. The author quotes directly and com-

mends the work of Agostino Scilla in his text, so it is

possible that much of this correct interpretation is

actually directly taken from the pioneering assump-

tions of the Italian painter and simply applied to the

study of ammonites (as already mentioned above, such

fossils were cleverly avoided by Scilla). On page 254

of his work, Passeri describes in some detail the

external appearance of an ammonite, recognising the

presence of ‘ribs’ (defined in the text as ‘grooves’) that

are straight, sickle-shaped or characterised by nodes,

the presence of one or two characteristic ventral keels,

and also notes that in some cases these keels are totally

absent, and therefore the ribs are uninterrupted from

the flanks to the ventral portion (called dorsal portion

by the author). According to Passeri, these structures

represent useful characters to distinguish the ammo-

nites known to him into at least seven or eight species.

This number seems ridiculously low when compared

with the thousands of species that would begin to be

described and formalised starting from the second half

of the nineteenth century; however, the work of Passeri

represents a conceptual breakthrough for the study of

these fossils. The ammonites are not only correctly

interpreted as the remains of marine organisms and not

mere freaks of nature, but also the particular features

of the shell are taken into account for a classification

of these fossils.

In 1780, Ambrogio Soldani published his work

Saggio orittografico ovvero osservazioni sopra le terre

nautilitiche ed ammonitiche della Toscana (Oritto-

graphic essay, or observations on the nautilitic and

ammonitic terrains of Tuscany). Soldani seems to reject

the hypothesis of a single Noah’s Deluge to explain the

presence of fossils in the hills, and states that the amount

of shells observed in the deposits and their arrangement

‘provides us an argument more than likely of subsequent

retreat of the sea, and of a long abode of the waters in

these countries’ (1780, p. 16). He then clearly opposes

the ‘volcanic’ hypothesis of Lazzaro Moro, who

interprets also the stratified deposits rich in shells as

the effect of volcanic eruptions. The aim of his work, as

Soldani stated himself, is raising awareness of the

‘nautilitic and ammonitic terrains’ so rich in ‘Corni di

Ammone’. In the work of Soldani, therefore, foramini-

fers are still interpreted as microscopic specimens of

ammonites (Figure 8), thus following the tradition

started in 1711 by Beccari, and simply applying the same

observations to the hills surrounding Siena (Cenozoic in

age). The author states that the ‘Corni di Ammone’

which he extracted from the clays ‘are perfectly intact,

empty, transparent, glassy, shiny as a color of pearl, and

with a thin and delicate shell’ (1780, p. 14), which

clearly shows that Soldani is actually describing the

porcellanaceous microforaminifers. In the text, Soldani

continues to support the analogy between these

microscopic ‘Horns of Ammon’ and what he calls

‘mountain ammonites’ (true ammonites), which are

mineralised, petrified and sometimes of ‘gigantic’ size.

To explain their absence from the deposits around Siena

and actual seas, Soldani resorts to assumptions already

made by other authors (such as Passeri), stating that

probably large living ammonites ‘are not found if not in

some inaccessible abyss of deep sea’ (1780, p. 14).

However, he also considers it possible that ‘the real race

(of these organism) has gone off’ (1780, p. 14) therefore

admitting, in a certain sense, the possibility of species

extinctions, completely in contrast to the dictates of the

Catholic dogma prevailing at that time in Italy (at least

on this aspect). In 1789, Soldani published the

Testaceographia et Zoophytographia parva et micro-

scopica, where foraminifers continue to be confused

with ammonites and nautilus of microscopic size.

As reported by Brocchi (1814), Soldani follows

the classification adopted by Breyn and separates

12 M. Romano

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

‘ammonites’ from the ‘nautilus’ (as said actually in both

cases microforaminifers) from the moment that the first

show the coils externally, while the latter have them

encased inside.

Nineteenth century

The Abbot Silvestro Marcellini briefly discusses the

‘Horns of Ammon’ in the chapter ‘petrifications’ of his

work Trattato compendioso orittologico of 1801. The

author accepts the origin of fossils as organisms ex-vivi

and describes the process of ‘petrification’ of fossil

remains; among these Marcellini places the ‘Corni di

Ammone’ which he defines as ‘certain petrifications in

spiral line that resemble snakes’ (1801, p. 194). In the rest

of the work, the author makes no other mention of

ammonites.

In his Introduzione alla Geologia (Introduction to

Geology) of 1811, Scipione Breislack reports and seems to

accept the classification of fossils into four classes

introduced by Blumenbach (a classification strongly

criticised and defined ‘crude and superficial’ by Zittel

(1901, p. 125)) with the third class to which can be

probably referred also the ammonites found in the

Apennines. The third class includes, in fact, the so-called

‘equivocal fossil’, i.e. the case in which some differences

always occur with analogous living species. In the words

of the author, there are differences such that they ‘do not

allow one to decide whether the fossils and organic beings

that resemble them, can be traced back to the same species

Figure 8. Foraminifera represented by Soldani in Table III of his work (1780) and reported under the name of ‘Hammonie, or for thecommon people (‘seu vulgo’, p. 102) Hammonis Cornua’ (p. 102). With Soldani continues the confusion between foraminifera andcephalopods, which began in Italy with the studies of Beccari and carried forward by Bianchi.

Historical Biology 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

more or less degenerated, or if they belong to different

species’ (1811, p. 104). Breislack recognises that many

fossils have no analogues living in the seas and that many

fossils belong to completely unknown species. Once again,

however, the author does not assume the possibility of the

disappearance or extinction of species, and merely states

that ‘Since, however, the investigations of this nature are

very difficult, and it is almost impossible to know all the

living beings that inhabit the vastness of seas and their

bottom; so one has to be very reserved on this subject’

(1811, p. 146). The author seems to accept the erroneous

interpretation of microforaminifers as tiny ammonites and

quotes the studies of Soldani which ‘from a single half

ounce . . . obtained 10224 nautilus and 230 ammonites’

(1811, p. 147). However, Breislack states that following

the works of Bruguiere, Lamarck and Bosch, who have

contributed to better define the appearance and structure of

different shell genera, it ‘remains to be examined whether

those small microscopic shells really do belong to the

ammonites’. Breislack therefore represents one of the first

Italian authors to properly put into question the association

between foraminifera and ammonites that are found

lithified in the mountains. It should also be noted that

Breislack no longer uses the ancient term ‘Corni di

Ammone’ and correctly refers to these fossil cephalopods

with the current term ‘ammonites’.

In the Memoria Mineralogica della Val di Fassa

(Mineralogical memoir on the Fassa Valley) of 1811,

Gianbattista Brocchi continues to define the word ‘fossil’

to include even the different types of rocks and minerals,

and not only the petrified remains of organisms, as in the

modern sense of the term. In this work, ammonites are still

called by the archaic term ‘Corna d’ammone’. In the text,

the author makes brief reference to these particular fossils

as characteristic constituents of the ‘Calcaria secondaria’

(secondary limestone) but does not dwell in detail on this

subject.

In 1814, the monumental work of Giambattista

Brocchi Conchiologia fossile subappenninica con osser-

vazioni geologiche sugli Appennini e sul suolo adiacente

(Sub-Apennine Fossil Conchology, with Geological

Observations on the Apennines and the Adjacent Soil)

was published. In the text, which would become a standard

reference for the vast majority of geological studies in Italy

(but also in other countries, taking into account the

comments and the recognition of the importance of the

work of Brocchi by Lyell in his Principles; see Vai 2009),

the author immediately clarifies the differences between

the deposits and the fossils that characterise the sub-

Apennine hills (Cenozoic) carefully examined by him,

compared with those constituting the calcareous chain of

the Apennines. Indeed, while the Cenozoic fossils still

show the little altered ‘original’ shell, the Apennine fossils

are lithified and, as the author asserts, ‘the shell has

disappeared, so that all that remains is a core that is its

model’ (1814, p. 21). In addition, among the collected

species and that observed in the Apennines, very few turn

out to be ‘identical’ with those still living and they are

‘imprisoned in very solid limestones which are so densely

adherent that can be said to be embedded with them’

(1814, p. 21). According to the author, the marked

difference between the Apennines and the adjacent

Subapennine hills clearly indicates also a fundamental

difference in the relative time of formation: the Apennines

are much older and are formed by the so-called ‘secondary

rocks’, while the poorly lithified deposits of the hills are

identified by the author with the term ‘Tertiary’. This

distinction, introduced for the first time by Arduino (Zittel

1901; Rodolico 1963; Vai 2007) and deepened by Brocchi,

was to enjoy extensive use in the subsequent geological

literature, was taken up and expanded by Lyell in his

Principles of Geology. In the writings of Brocchi, it is

assumed that the sea and the land must have changed their

reciprocal boundaries several times during Earth history.

It is just as certain, in the eyes of the author, that many

species of living organisms must necessarily have been

extinguished. In Brocchi, writing and reasoning about the

possibility of extinctions and loss of species reach their

most complete and organic form among his contemporary

Italian writings (see also Vai 2009), taking into account, by

analogy, not only the fossil mollusks but also quadrupeds

described by Cuvier. Brocchi criticises the theories of

Linnaeus and in particular of Walch, who claims the

impossibility of assessing extinction of a species without

examining the entire unexplored seabed. Quite the

contrary: the observations made directly by Brocchi on

mollusks of Cenozoic deposits, and review of the works of

Cuvier on mammals of the Paris Basin, lead the author to

assert ‘that the species perish like individuals, and were

designed to make their appearance in the world for a

specific period’ (1814, p. 227). Brocchi assumed that the

disappearance of a species is slow and gradual, comparing

it to the slow deterioration of a single organism during the

course of its life. The author states that even today some

species appear to be in such a condition of ‘deterioration’

and ‘decadence’, and among these he includes the tiny

‘Nautilus’ of the Adriatic (foraminifers). These represent,

according to Brocchi, the last deteriorated remnants of

those ‘voluminous horns of Ammon, once so numerous,

and the remains of which are so common not only in the

mountains of Europe, but also in those of Asia and Africa’

(1814, p. 230). However, the author appears doubtful about

the real correspondence between the foraminifers col-

lected by Bianchi, and the ammonites of the Apennines.

Brocchi correctly arrives at the conclusion that, in reality,

the microscopic ‘nautiletti’ (tiny Nautilus) represent quite

distinct and not ‘deteriorated’ species, as these organisms

are of microscopic size in both the sands of the present

shorelines and in Cenozoic deposits that form the ‘sub-

Apennine’ hills. The author also criticises the theory

14 M. Romano

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

proposed by some naturalists, such as Brughiere,

according to which the giant species of ‘Corni di

Ammone’ have not actually disappeared but instead are

currently living in the deep sea and cannot rise to the

surface due to the weight and the particular shape of the

shell. Bruguiere came to this conclusion by observing that

the ammonites of mountain deposits are almost never

found associated with littoral species ‘but are placed in the

lower strata, and [are] consequently much older; infallible

proof, in his opinion, which harbored in the gloomy abyss’

(Brocchi 1814, p. 231). From these passages, it is clear that

confusion exists between what are now regarded as

separate characteristics of palaeoecology, sedimentary

deposition and environments, and disposition of rock

strata. In fact, according to the French author, the beds

located at greater depths must necessarily have been

formed in an abyssal environment, simply by virtue of

their position in the stratigraphic column. Brocchi (1814)

correctly observes that the large ammonites are not

necessarily confined to the lowest beds, and mentions the

case of the Umbria-Marche Appennines, where deposits

rich in large ammonites occupy the tops of the mountains,

as in the Monte Catria and Monte Nerone (Marche, Italy).

Brocchi most likely refers to the condensed deposits rich

in ammonoids formed in the PCP setting (i.e. Pelagic

Carbonate Platform, see Santantonio 1993; Galluzzo and

Santantonio 2002). In addition, Bruguiere claims that,

considering the common association of ammonites with

remains of ‘crinoids’ (Isis entrocha, Isis asteria and

Vorticella encrinus in the original text), and the

assumption that these organisms were found in the bottom

of the present sea, this could easily prove that, by analogy,

large ammonites currently inhabit the deep seabed

(Brocchi 1814).

Tommaso Antonio Catullo, in his Osservazioni sopra i

monti che circoscrivono il distretto di Belluno (Obser-

vations on the mountains that surround the district of

Belluno) published in 1818, briefly mentions the

ammonites and lists all the interpretations – in his view

erroneous and fanciful – that are found in the literature

with respect to the belemnoids. He claims:

Finally it is wanted that the animal of belemnoid can bereferred to the genus of nautilus, and results in the sameway equipped of a ligament that crosses all the diaphragmsor spaces, which divide the cavity of the shell, the last ofwhich is always inhabited by the animal. (1818, p. 115)

In his work published in 1819, Catullo states that, despite

the fact that the mountains forming the ‘outermost’ portion

of the Tyrolean Alps are full of fossil organisms (largely

ammonites) – which, for the most part, are not known by

extant analogues – only a few naturalists have made a

commitment to carefully describe the characters and

species, as has made ‘the famous Brocchi with regard to

Subapenninic hills’ (1819, p. 48). Regarding the

ammonites of the Verona area, the author makes a series

of interesting taphonomic observations. In particular, one

contemporary theory proposed that the degradation of a

species would lead, in the course of time, to a steady

decrease in size (as seen above, a theory found in part also

in the work of Brocchi). According to some authors, this

phenomenon can be observed, for example, in the

‘ammonites’, with living nearshore representatives (in

reality foraminifers) characterised by microscopic size.

Catullo, on the other hand, observes that giant ‘Corni di

Ammone’ co-occur with much smaller ammonites. This

observation is sufficient, according to Catullo, to

completely ‘falsify’ the theory linking species degradation

and size. Therefore, even in this case, the direct

observation of phenomenological data is properly

prepended and put into the foreground on the ontological

level, with regards to preconceived theories and models

already developed and largely accepted. Catullo concludes

his confutation by stating that ‘Let us accept, therefore,

that in the same period there were horns of Ammon of

various sizes, and that the difference in volume derives

only from the major or minor age of the animal that is

housed inside’ (1819, p. 224).

In 1824, the volume Ricerche sulla Geologia

(Research on Geology) by Albertino Bellenghi was

published. The author, in discussing the antiquity of the

world (certainly much older than reported in the Mosaic

tradition in his view), calls into question (in addition to

rock composition and structure, with rock beds not

arranged horizontally) even the disappearance of entire

species of organisms. In this regard, he states:

The same fossils indicate that major changes and fearfulsights revolutions have happened in the globe. Clusters ofskeletons of unknown species of animals alreadyextinguished and destroyed are found buried, of whichthe philosophers erudite in the Natural History until nowhave numbered seventy-two species. (1824, p. 7)

The author therefore accepts the possibility of species

extinctions throughout Earth history (already present in

the Italian writings by the work of Brocchi), and assumes

catastrophes, which resulted in complete extinctions,

followed by subsequent new creations of men and species

of animals and plants. According to the author, such an

interpretation would not be at odds with the Sacred

Scriptures and would predict the existence of a pre-

Adamic generation and the possibility that, in the future,

there will be a post-Adamic generation, following the

destruction of the current generations. In the text,

Bellenghi criticises the hypothesis of a single Deluge

(which is nonetheless maintained as one of the possible

floods) and uses the ammonites to demonstrate the

necessity of a much older marine depositions, that turn out

to be considerably ‘antediluvial’ (much older than the

Deluge, as stated earlier by Spada). In fact, the petrified

Historical Biology 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

fossils of Apennine limestone, particularly the ammonites,

are never found, as the author asserts (and as observed

earlier by Brocchi), in association with the fossils of the

sub-Apennine hills (Cenozoic deposits) and also never

retain their original shell, as observed rather often for the

more recent marine fossils. This series of depositions

occurred at different stages and are therefore well

separated in time, leading again to the crucial concept of

‘deep time’. The author, in fact, is convinced that ‘we can

give to the world an age far more venerable than is

commonly granted to it, without fear of contradicting to

the Sacred Scriptures, and to destroy the Mosaic

Chronology’ (1824, p. 15). Ultimately, all the work of

Bellenghi stems from an attempt to reconcile the new

discovery of the antiquity of the world, brought to light by

recent geological studies (Bellenghi defines some authors

of such studies as ‘miscreants Geologists’) with the

revealed truth of Sacred Scripture (such an effort,

especially to demonstrate the scientific evidence of the

Deluge, is also found in the Swiss naturalist Jean-Andre

De Luc and, subsequently, in William Buckland). In this

way, Bellenghi seeks to demonstrate that a different and

non-traditional reading of the scriptures might actually

lead to the interpretation of a very ancient earth, with

successive catastrophes, extinctions and completely de

novo creations.

A careful reading of Saggio di zoologia fossile (Essay of

fossil zoology) of Tommaso Antonio Catullo, published in

1827, sheds light on how the great part of the fundamental

achievements in earth sciences are now metabolised and

find vast space in the writings of the Italian author. The

hypothesis of a single Noah’s Deluge is strongly rejected

and is ultimately denied, according to the author, by the

orderly arrangement of the strata in the deposits and their

contained fossil species. According to Catullo this observed

order ‘cannot be reconciled with the idea of a raging sea,

bearer of horrible plagues, which would have dispersed and

piled up the marine bodies in a confused manner’ (1827,

p. 12). On the contrary, in situ study of the stratified deposits

suggests, the author says, that the Earth had long been

covered by water, the latter populated by living beings

‘capable of preferring, depending on their affections, a place

rather than another to settle’ (1827, p. 12). From this

statement, it is possible to guess that not only the author

correctly interprets the possibility that the land and sea

could have had variables boundaries in the past, but

indirectly gives to fossils a strictly ‘palaeoecological’

meaning (borrowing a current terminology). Catullo also

admits the extinction of species, necessarily resulting from

the observation of fossils that have no equivalent in the

current sea, and highlights the importance of the study of

fossils to geology:

since it seeks to elucidate the history of the continents inone with that of Nature, which, in the more distant

periods of the existence of the globe, indubitablyproduced living beings very different from those thatflourish now, both in the sea and on earth; and thesebeings who are the survivors of the world of the past, arestill conserved in the bowels of mountains, to proclaim tohumanity, in a dark and mystical language, their origin.(1827, p. 11)

Regarding the disappearance of species, the author says (in

agreement with Brocchi) that species perish like

individuals, having a fixed and determined period for

their existence. It is remarkable, however, that the author –

as, inter alia, several other students of his time – does not

address the problem posed by this view: that other species

must have somehow appeared during the course of Earth’s

history, as many Cenozoic or extant organisms (sub-

Apennine hills studied by Brocchi) are never found in the

oldest deposits, which are, by contrast, rich in ‘dis-

appeared’ species. It is necessary to await the epochal

revolution triggered by the work of Darwin in 1859 to

finally square the circle and to provide a conceptual basis

for the biostratigraphic use of fossils, with appearances

and disappearances having purely evolutionary meaning.

As noted already in Bellenghi, Noah’s Deluge, however, is

preserved as a single process of catastrophic flood, to

which the author attributes in particular the ‘terrains which

abound in broken and smashed bones, which attest to

having been transported there by some huge irruption of

water’ (1827, p. 28). However, in agreement with the

tradition started by Spada and also found in Bellenghi, the

‘petrified’ fossils (including especially the ammonites)

must necessarily be referred to a ‘much more distant era

with respect to the Deluge and to all other occurred

flooding’ (1827, p. 28). In describing the order in which

the fossils are found, the author seems to completely

follow the observations of Brocchi, stating that the

similarity of the ‘multitudes of generations’ gradually

decreases with the depth of the examined strata, and thus

with the antiquity of the sediments. The author speaks

briefly of ammonites still using the archaic term

‘cornammoni’, not yet completely eradicated by the

geological literature, and provides three species within the

single genus Ammonites. Moreover, the position of

ammonites in rock strata is used by the author to show

that the strongly tilted beds currently observed in mountain

deposits does not appear to be the original one. According

to the author, in fact, the sediments must have been

deposited necessarily horizontal to enable those fossil

bodies to rest on the seabed substrate; following the

hypothesis of Lazzaro Moro, Catullo attributes the

different disposition of the strata to the action of volcanic

eruptions that ‘happened after the consolidation of the

Scaglia’ (1827, p. 195).

The ammonites are briefly treated in the second

volume of Dizionario delle Scienze naturali (Dictionary of

Natural Sciences 1831). In the text, it is stated that the

16 M. Romano

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

research done by various authors to discover the analogous

extant species have proved completely fruitless ‘because

the species have been destroyed by reasons yet unknown,

or because they only exist in the depths of the open sea’

(1831, p. 63).

Subsequent to the work of Brocchi in Italy, Lyell and

Smith in England, and Cuvier and Brongniart in France,

‘petrified remains of former plants and animals ceased to

be mere curiosities’ (Geikie 1897, p. 240). The importance

and stratigraphic value of fossils (see also Vai 2009) – and

of ammonites – for interpreting the deposits of

‘secondary’ mountains are now universally recognised. It

follows that, in the writings of Italian authors at the end of

the first half of the nineteenth century, and throughout the

second half of the same century, ammonites are now used

and cited in works with a purely stratigraphic meaning.

Leopoldo Pilla, in his treatise on geology of 1847,

discusses masterfully the non-random distribution of

fossils in sedimentary deposits – already formulated by

Brocchi – placing the right emphasis on the impossibility

of recurrence of species that disappeared in the course of

geological time and the possibility of temporal correlation

between layers that contain the same forms. The power of

biostratigraphic resolution of ammonites is fully under-

stood by the author, who comes to define the ‘red

ammonitiferous limestone’ as ‘the best horizon that can be

seen in Italy to sort the other Jurassic divisions’ (1847,

p. 415). Even having understood the biostratigraphic

potential of fossils, the classification of ammonites

remained poorly developed in the nineteenth century,

and Italian authors cite from the systematic point of view

the single genus Ammonites, a name proposed by

Guillaume Bruguiere in 1789 (Nelson 1968) and following

basically the schemes proposed later by d’Orbigny,

Sowerby, Debuch and Tournefort. This monogenic

classification is found, for example, in the works of Da

Rio (1836), Pilla (1845a, 1845b, 1847), Pareto (1846), De

Zigno (1846), Collegno (1847), Sismonda (1848, 1852),

Costa (1850), Savi and Meneghini (1851), Catullo (1853)

and Meneghini (1855, 1865).

As reported by Vai (2009), Sismonda in 1845 superbly

used ammonites to demonstrate the Jurassic age of large

outcrops of metamorphic rocks in the Western Alps.

Palaeontological analysis allowed the author to differen-

tiate two units with different degrees of metamorphism

and lithology, and in particular the study of metamor-

phosed ammonites allowed attribution to the ‘secondary

Rocks’ even those deposits that were believed to be the

oldest or ‘Primary’ (Vai 2009).

In 1847, Pilla reports the distinction between

Ammonites, Ceratites and Goniatites based on the peculiar

structure of the suture line proposed by De Haan.

In addition, he also correctly positions among the

cephalopods ‘Orthocera, Belemnites, Baculites, Hamites,

Scaphites, [and] Turrilites’.

Costa (1850) points out that even following seminal

contributions by de Buch, d’Orbigny and Pichet, many

problems remained with regard to the study of ammonites.

Even retaining the single genus Ammonites, however, the

descriptions of the individual species can be considered of

fairly modern style, with appropriate terminology and a

detailed analysis of whorls and suture line.

Savi and Meneghini (1851) use ammonites in

biostratigraphic sense for the relative dating of the

analysed terrains. The species mentioned in the work are

analysed and described in detail (the proportions between

the different anatomical lengths of the specimens under

study are also reported), and even the relative abundance

of different species is taken into account in order to better

define the possible relative age of the rocks (even in this

case is used the single genus Ammonites). An important

conclusion reached by the authors, owing to use of the

biostratigraphic property of fossils (and specifically of

ammonites) is that ‘the mineralogical and lithological

composition have only a slight value to determine the

distinctions of various stages of the terrains’ (1851, p. 51).

Therefore, the use of fossils appears of paramount

importance and of more utility than the simple

mineralogical analysis of sediments, because, as properly

understood and argued by the authors, different types of

sediment and deposits may be formed in the same

temporal horizon, depending on the peculiar depositional

environments and factors that control them.

Gemmellaro, with his Studi paleontologici della fauna

del calcare a Terebratula janitor del Nord di Sicilia

(Palaeontological studies of the fauna of the Terebratula

janitor limestone of Northern Sicily) of 1868, represents

one of the first Italian authors (the first according to Sarti

1994) to use the classification schemes of ammonites by

Suess, Waagen and Zittel, with the genus Ammonites now

divided into several new genera; in the same publication

Gemmellaro establishes three new ammonites species (i.e.

Perisphinctites segestanus, Perisphinctites nebrodensis

and Stephanoceras cannizzaroi).

In 1898, the Contribuzione alla conoscenza delle

ammoniti liassiche della Lombardia (Contribution to the

knowledge of Liassic ammonites of the Lombardy) of C.F.

Parona was published. This can be considered an example

of the style characterising the Italian work on ammonites

at the end of the nineteenth century. The single genus

Ammonites of previous authors has been finally aban-

doned, replaced by generic names still in use. Intriguingly,

Parona’s work consists of purely typological description of

objects (often very detailed), without any reference to

possible evolution of included forms (see ‘Discussion’

section).

Historical Biology 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

Discussion

The brief summary of the principal early Italian studies

dealing with ammonites, presented above, clearly shows

the complexity of changing thought and interpretation that

have been proposed, from time to time, with respect to

these fossil cephalopods. To try to simplify this complex

picture, I identify a basic set of conceptual nodes that bring

together the ideas and interpretations of the treated

authors.

Considering the period between the sixteenth and the

late eighteenth centuries, the first dichotomy that is

definitely configured is between the authors such as

Mercati, Calceolari the Younger, Falloppio and Stelluti,

who still prefer an inorganic origin for fossils (logically

including ammonites), and authors such as Colonna,

Imperato, Moscardo, Scilla, Vallisneri, Beccari, Spada,

Piccoli, Moro, Gallerani, Baldassarri, Bianchi, Monti,

Passeri and Soldani (and – long before – Leonardo) who

correctly – and in some cases for the first time at an

international level – interpret the fossil organisms as

remains of ex-vivi organisms. Such a large number of

supporters for the organic origin of fossils in Italy – in a

very embryonic state of knowledge in the earth sciences –

is a quite peculiar fact, if one considers that, in the rest of

Europe, theories of inorganic origins continued to be

preferred for a much longer period of time. Georg Bauer in

his De Natura Fossilium (1546) interprets ammonites as

having been formed by the ‘lapidifying juice’; however, it

is not clear whether this confers to these objects

necessarily an organic origin (Nelson 1968). Even in

Kornad Gesner, there is a mixture of organic and inorganic

interpretations to explain the formation of ammonites,

called Cornu serpentis by the author (Nelson 1968).

An inorganic interpretation of ammonites is found in the

writings of Martin Lister, Robert Plot, John Ray, Johann

Reiske and Karl Nicolaus Lang. According to Rudwick

(1972) in the sixteenth century, the renewed Aristotelian-

ism and the synthetic Neoplatonism had a significant

influence on the development of modern science, and

specifically in the interpretations about the true origin of

fossils. In the Aristotelian view could be contemplated the

in situ growth of objects that resembled organisms, by a

combination of the real shape of the latter with the stony

matter; for Neoplatonists, the clear similarity of fossils to

living organisms was related to a so-called ‘plastic virtue’

or pervasive moulding force, ‘which made visible the

hidden web of affinities that bound all parts of the cosmos

into one’ (Rudwick 1972). If these currents of thought

represent the fundamental zeitgeist to the sixteenth century

(but in some cases such as Athanasius Kircher also for the

seventeenth century), the importance of the correct

interpretation of fossils found in some Italian authors is

therefore self-evident.

A second peculiar aspect is represented by those

authors such as Scilla and Vallisnieri who, while accepting

and defending the organic origin of fossils (with highly

advanced arguments for their time), however, or do not

speak at all of ammonites (Scilla) or cite them very briefly

in their work (Vallisneri). A possible explanation to this

fact, already briefly mentioned above, is inextricably

linked to the fixist concept of species and therefore to the

impossibility of conceiving extinction as a biological

process. It follows that, if the zeitgeist was pervaded by the

fixist concept of the sacred Scriptures, the impossibility of

finding actual analogues for ammonites in the seas and

oceans seriously called into question their interpretation as

lithified remains of once-living organisms. This must have

brought both Scilla and Vallisnieri to the use of Cenozoic

species to argue for and support their theses about the

origin of fossils, as these types of fossils find numerous

analogues in present seas.

Another peculiar phase consisted in the recognition, at

the microscope, of foraminifers and their erroneous

interpretation as tiny shells of ammonites and nautiloids.

According to Zittel (1901), such confusion begins as early

as the studies of Conrad Gesner (1565), which describe the

nummulites collected in the surroundings of Paris and

relate them to the Ammonites (as did Scheuchzer of Zurich

as reported by Michelotti (1841)). As stated by Zittel

(1901, p. 128):

Special papers were written upon them, but authors failedto arrive at any clear understanding about their zoologicalposition. As a rule they were associated with Nautilus andthe Ammonites, but they were sometimes regarded asworms (De Saussure), or as the inner shells of molluscs(Fortis, De Luc).

The history of the study of microscopic foraminifers,

and their confusion in the classification with cephalopods,

is clearly summarised by Seguenza (1862), who divides

the progress in the analysis into four distinct ‘epochs’

(another more extensive and detailed synthesis of the

history of foraminifera studies can be found in Michelotti

(1841)). The first author to recognise these microscopic

organisms was the Italian Beccari (‘first epoch’), who in

1711 signalled their presence in the sands of the

Apennines. According to Seguenza, after the study of

Beccari, these microscopic organisms were considered as

‘mere entertainment and pastime’ and quotes, as

examples, the works of Breyen, Bianchi, Gualtieri, Ginnai

and Ladermuller. Subsequently, foraminifers were con-

sidered as living species of ammonites and nautilus, and

this erroneous interpretation was used by Linnaeus himself

in 1766. This classification, which held together

cephalopods and foraminifera, was accepted and followed

by authors until the end of the eighteenth century and we

find clear examples, among others, in Montagu, Turton,

Martini, Soldani and Fiktel (Seguenza 1862). The second

18 M. Romano

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

epoch is made to start, by Seguenza, with fundamental

studies of Lamarck, which in 1804, realising the

impossibility of bringing together all the ‘chambered

shells’ in one genus, proposes the division into new genera

and brings together the microscopic foraminifera along

with Nautilus, and ammonites in ‘Cefalopodi Politala-

mici’. Seguenza reports that this new classification

proposed by Lamarck was later followed by the most

illustrious French zoologists such as Cuvier, Defrance, de

Blainville and Ferrusac. The studies ‘of the indefatigable

Alcide d’Orbigny’ inaugurate the ‘third epoch’ (Seguenza

1862). The French author, after 6 years of analysis, finally

arrives at the correct conclusion that these microscopic

organisms cannot be reunited with cephalopods, but must

necessarily form a distinct order to which he gave the name

Foraminifera. This name, coined by d’Orbigny, is accepted

and used by Rang and Ferrusac, while the preferred names

of other authors vary: ‘Polipodi’ by Deshayes, ‘Tremato-

fori’ by Menke, ‘Simplettomeri’ and ‘Riziopods’ by

Dujardin (Seguenza 1862). Finally, the fourth epoch is

marked by the studies of Dujardin who, from 1835,

showed that the shell in such microscopic organisms is

external and not internal, as believed by previous authors.

Furthermore, the author studied the peculiar locomotor

organs of foraminifera and changed the name from

‘Simplettomeri’ to Rhizopoda.

The erroneous classification of foraminifera among

cephalopods and, more generally, the confusion between

the ‘Horns of Ammon’ and foraminifera, are found, for

example, in the works of the Italian authors Beccari,

Bianchi, Moro, Baldassarri, Soldani and Tozzetti. Still

under the fixist concept of species, the interpretation of

foraminifera found on coastlines as microscopic ‘Corni di

Ammone’, represents, for the Italian authors of this period,

a key piece of evidence that the large lithified ammonites

found in the mountains constitute the fossilised remains of

organisms that once lived in the sea. The foraminifera,

misinterpreted as microscopic ammonites, therefore

represent the long sought living analogues, whose absence

from the actual seas had probably brought Scilla to

‘expertly’ discard cephalopods from treatment in his work.

There still remained, however, the problem of explaining

why, in current seas, are not ammonites of considerable

size such as those lithified of the mountains, but only

microscopic specimens are found. Some authors, such as

Passeri and Soldani, use the same expedient devised by

Scilla to explain the absence of giant sharks in the sea of

Malta (some shark teeth analysed by Scilla had

considerable dimensions; see Romano 2013), i.e. they

assume that these organisms currently populate the bottom

of the deep oceans, or that they inhabit hitherto unexplored

places (a hypothesis found even in John Ray to reconcile

the extinctions with the perfection of Creation and in

Woodward; see Rudwick 1972). This hypothesis, although

it might seem at first sight quite childish, is taken seriously

into account even in the writings of 1811 by Scipione

Breislack, showing how still far was the acquisition of the

idea of extinction and possible evolution of new species.

In the international realm, the modern study of

cephalopods can be said to start, according to Nelson

(1968), with the works of Lamarck and Cuvier in late

eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In particular, in

the nineteenth century, the greatest contribution to the

study and understanding of cephalopods is that provided

by Leopold von Buch (during the 1830s), where it is

brought to light the distinction of the siphuncle in

nautiloids and the ammonoids and the suture line is studied

in depth with establishment of a new nomenclature and

distinction in three main categories. Furthermore, for the

first time, the evidence is analysed of an apparent

complication of the suture line during the geological time,

which may find its use in a biostratigraphical sense (Zittel

1901; Nelson 1968). At the same time develop the

fundamental studies of Richard Owen, with the formalisa-

tion of the two terms ‘Dibranchiata’ and ‘Tetrabranchiata’

to indicate, respectively, the ‘naked’ and ‘shelled’ orders

(Nelson 1968). As already mentioned above, in the Italian

panorama of the nineteenth century, ammonites assumed

stratigraphic significance, even if considering the single

genus Ammonites (e.g. the works of Da Rio, Pilla, Pareto,

De Zigno, Collegno, Sismonda, Costa, Savi, Meneghini

and Catullo). According to Zittel (1901), the decisive step

to the subdivision of the single genus Ammonites was

made in 1865 by Suess, with the establishment of the

genera Phylloceras, Lytoceras and Arcester. Even Alpheus

Hyatt in his work on Liassic ammonites, published in

1869, brings forward a similar reform in the classification,

with the formalisation of several new genera of

ammonites, a scheme subsequently accepted and used by

Zittel, Laube, Mojsisovics, Neumayr and Waagen (Zittel

1901). These classifications and subdivisions are essen-

tially those adopted and used by Italian authors in the late

nineteenth century (in some cases, in addiction to the new

genera, even the single genus Ammonites persists). The

ammonites in this phase of the study of earth sciences are

simply used (at least in Italy) as biostratigraphic indicators

for recognising homotaxis sequences and then to sort the

Mesozoic deposits of the peninsula. The analysis of

specimens at this stage involves mere typological

descriptions of objects (though very detailed), without

any reference to the possible biology, ecology and

evolution of these extinct cephalopods. This approach to

the study of ammonites can be easily appreciated by

consulting the first 10 volumes of Bollettino della Societa

Geologica Italiana where it is well exemplified by the

works of Cafici (1882), Rossi (1882, 1884), Tuccimei

(1883, 1887), Verri (1884), Nicolis and Parona (1885),

Tommasi (1885), Taramelli (1885), Seguenza (1885),

Terrenzi (1886), Issel (1887), Secco (1888), Parona

(1890), Cozzaglio (1891), Di Stefano and Cortese

Historical Biology 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

(1891), Fucini (1891) and Negri (1891). Considering the

same journal, it was not until the 1893 work of Bonarelli

where, for the first time, word ‘evolution’ is associated

with the study of ammonites, 34 years after the publication

of Darwin’s Origin of Species (already in 1869 Wilhelm

Waagen had re-analysed the Jurassic ammonites trying to

identify the evolutionary connections between the various

species; see Rudwick 1972).

A final aspect that deserves to be emphasised is the

relationship between the interpretation of the geological

phenomena in some Italian authors (in particular during

the course of the eighteenth century) and the revealed truth

of Sacred Scriptures. In particular, the work, analysis and

pioneering assumptions formulated by Vallisneri, Spada,

Moro and Passeri represent a wonderful example of

separation between science and religion magisteria.

In these authors – in contrast to Gregory Piccoli in

which the blind belief in the religious dogma occupies a

priority position – the direct studies of nature and field

evidence have a real ontological priority on the

formulation of explanatory hypotheses, compared with a

literal and dogmatic exegesis of Scripture. It is even more

surprising that such freedom of thought was developed by

two men of the church, the priest Spada and the Abbot

Passeri. As has already been clearly highlighted by Vai

(2003a), such a peculiar phenomenon of Italian geological

science during the eighteenth century is a real positive

anomaly in the international panorama, if one considers

that the works and theories of Woodward, Burnet and

Whinston were still steeped in obtuse dogmatism. The

empirical approach and freedom of thought, probably a

direct inheritance of the genius of Leonardo, Aldrovandi

and Galileo, distinguish the enlightened minds of these

Italian thinkers. A genuine scientific approach that clearly

shines through the solemn words of Anton Lazzaro Moro,

who with intelligence, and especially with the observation

of field evidence, demolished the imaginary systems

designed by Burnet and Woodward: ‘because the

Philosopher should adapt his understanding to the laws

of Nature, not prescribe to the nature the laws invented by

his own understanding: and to say it in fewer words: The

Philosopher must be schoolboy and not teacher of Nature,’

(p. 366) which is the essence of Aldrovandi’s lesson.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Richard L. Cifelli and Umberto Nicosia fortheir constructive comments which have consistently improvedthe text. The reviewers and the Associate Editor are also thankedfor their comments and suggestions on the manuscript.

References

Accordi B. 1975. Contributions to history of geological sciences: PaoloBoccone (1633–1704) – a practically unknown excellent geo-paleontologist of the 17th century. Geol Rom. 14:353–359.

Accordi B. 1976. Contributions to the history of geological sciences:illustrators of the Kircher Museum naturalistic collections. GeolRom. 15:113–126.

Accordi B. 1977. Contributions to the history of geological sciences: theMusaeum Calceolarium (XVIth Century) of Verona illustrated in1622 by Ceruti and Chiocco. Geol Rom. 16:21–54.

Accordi B. 1978. Agostino Scilla, painter from Messina (1629–1700),and his experimental studies on the true nature of fossils. Geol Rom.17:129–144.

Accordi B. 1980. Michele Mercati (1541–1593) e la Metallotheca. GeolRom. 19:1–50.

Aldrovandi U. 1648. Musaeum Metallicum in libros IIII distributum.Bononiae: typis Jo. Baptistae Ferronij. 992 pp.

Baldassarri G. 1750a. Osservazioni sopra il sale della creta, con un saggiodi produzioni naturali dello stato Sanese. Siena: Nella Stamperia delPubblico, per Francesco Rossi Stampatore. 36 pp.

Baldassarri G. 1750b. Saggio di produzioni naturali dello stato Sanese chesi ritrovano nel museo del Nobile Sig. Cavaliere Giovanni VenturiGallerani. Siena: Nella Stamperia del Pubblico, per Francesco RossiStampatore. 32 pp.

Baratta M. 1903. Leonardo da Vinci ed i Problemi della Terra. Torino:Fratelli Bocca Editori. 318 pp.

Bastiani A. 1770. Analisi delle acque minerali di S. Casciano de’Bagni edell’uso di esse nella medicina. Firenze: Nella Stamperia di S.A.R.Per Gaet. Camb. 126 pp.

Bellenghi A. 1824. Ricerche sulla Geologia. Rovereto: dall’I.R. Stamperia Marchesani. 124 pp.

Bianchi G. 1739. De conchis minus notis. Liber cui accessit specimenaestus reciproci maris superi ad littus portumque arimini. Romae:In aedibus Palladis, I.P.A. 136 pp.

Boccone P. 1674. Recherches et observations naturelles touchant leCorail, La Pierre Etoilee etc. Amsterdam: Chez Jean Jansson aWaesberger. 328 pp.

Boccone P. 1684. Osservazioni naturali ove si contengono MaterieMedico-Fisiche, e di Botanica, Produzioni Naturali, Fosfori diversi,Fuochi sotterranei, d’Italia, e altre curiosita. Bologna: Per liManolessi Stamp. Camer. 400 pp.

Bonanni F. 1709. Musaeum Kircherianum sive Musaeum A P. AthanasioKirchero, In Collegio Romano Societatis Jesu, Jam PridemInceptum, Nuper restitutum, auctum, descriptum, & Iconibusillustratum excellentissimo domino Francisco Mariae Ruspolo,antiquae urbis agyllinae principi oblatum A P. Philippo BonanniSocietatis Jesu. Romae: Typis Georgii Plachi Caelaturam Profitentis& Characterum, fusoriam prope S. Marcus. 522 pp.

Bonarelli G. 1893. Osservazioni sul Toarciano e l’Aleniano dell’Appen-nino Centrale. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 12:195–254.

Breislack S. 1811. Introduzione alla Geologia. Milano: Dalla StamperiaReale. 368 pp.

Brocchi G. 1811. Memoria Mineralogica della Val di Fassa in Tirolo.Milano: Per Giovanni Silvestri. 233 pp.

Brocchi G. 1814. Conchiologia Fossile Subapennina con OsservazioniGeologiche sugli Apennini e sul Suolo Adiacente. 2 vols. Milano:Stamperia Reale. 240 pp.

Cafici A. 1882. Contribuzione alla fauna cretacea italiana. Boll Soc GeolItal. 1:196–202.

Capellini G. 1897. Sulla data precisa della scoperta dei minutiforaminiferi e sulla prima applicazione del microscopio all’analisimeccanica delle rocce per Iacopo Bartolomeo Beccari. Mem RealeAcc Scienze Bologna. serie, 5:VI. 20 pp.

Catullo TA. 1818. Osservazioni sopra i monti che circoscrivono ildistretto di Belluno. Verona: Dalla Tipografia Mainardi. 147 pp.

Catullo TA. 1819. Seguito della relazione sui petrefatti del Veronese,diretta al Professore D. Antonio Okofer da T.A. Catullo. Giorn FisChim Sto Nat Med Art. 2:45–58.

Catullo TA. 1827. Saggio di zoologia fossile. Padova: Dalla Tipografiadel Seminario. 348 pp.

Catullo TA. 1853. Intorno ad una nuova classificazione delle calcarierosse ammonitiche delle Alpi Venete. Vol. V Memorie dell’I.R. Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti. Venezia: GiovanniCecchini. 57 pp.

Ceruti B, Chiocco A. 1622. Musaeum Franc. Calceolarii iun. Veronensisa Benedicto Ceruto medico incaeptum, et ab Andrea Chiocco med.Physico excellentiss. Collegii luculenter descriptum, et perfectum in

20 M. Romano

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

quo multa ad naturalem moralemque. Philosophiam spectantia, nonpauca ad rem medicam pertinentia erudite proponuntur, etexplicantur, non sine magna rerum exoticarum supellectile, quaeartifici plane manu in aes incisae, studiosis exibentur. Veronae:Angelum Tamum. 746 pp.

Collegno G. 1847. Elementi di geologia pratica e teorica destinatiprincipalmente ad agevolare lo studio del suolo dell’Italia. Torino:G. Pomba e Comp. Editori. 446 pp.

Costa OG. 1850. Paleontologia del Regno di Napoli contenente ladescrizione e figura di tutti gli avanzi organici fossili racchiusi nelsuolo di questo regno. Napoli: Stabilimento Tipografico DelTramater. 203 pp.

Cozzaglio A. 1891. Osservazioni geologiche sulla riviera bresciana delLago di Garda. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 10:247–308.

De Lorenzo G. 1920. Leonardo da Vinci e la Geologia. Bologna: NicolaZanichelli. 195 pp.

Da Rio N. 1836. Orittologia Euganea. Padova: Tipografia Cartallier. 179pp.

De Zigno A. 1846. Nota intorno alla promiscuita dei fossili fra il bianconee la calcarea ammonitica delle alpi venete. Venezia: Co’ i Tipi diPietro Naratovichi. 15 pp.

Di Stefano G, Cortese E. 1891. Guida Geologica dei dintorni di Taormina.Boll Soc Geol Ital. 10:197–246.

Ferrario G. 1829. Il costume antico e moderno ovvero storia del governo,della milizia, della religione, delle arti, scienze ed usanze di tutti ipopoli antichi e moderni, Terza Edizione, Asia, Volume Secondo.Torino: Per Alessandro Fontana. 589 pp.

Foresti L. 1887. Sopra alcuni fossili illustrati e descritti nel MusaeumMetallicum di Ulisse Aldrovandi. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 6:81–116.

Fucini A. 1891. Fossili Liassici calabresi. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 10:89–91.Galluzzo F, Santantonio M. 2002. The Sabina Plateau: a new element in

the Mesozoic palaeogeography of Central Apennines. TectonicStudies Group Meeting, 1997. Boll Soc Geol Ital Spec. 1:561–588.

Geikie A. 1897. The founders of geology. London/New York: Macmillanand Co., Limited/The Macmillan Company. 297 pp.

Gemmellaro GG. 1868. Studj paleontologici della fauna del calcare aTerebratula janitor del Nord di Sicilia. Palermo: StabilimentoTipografico Lao. 56 pp.

Imperato F. 1672. Historia Naturale. Venetia: Presso Combi & LaNou.704 pp.

Issel A. 1887. La nuova carta geologica delle riviere liguri e delle AlpiMarittime. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 6:209–224.

Lami G. 1740. Novelle Letterarie pubblicate in Firenze. Tomo I. Firenze:Nella Stamperia Granducale. 891 pp.

Luzzini F. 2009. Flood conceptions in Vallisneri’s thought. Geol SocLond Spec Publ. 310:77–81.

Marcellini S. 1801. Trattato compendioso orittologico. Camerino: Dallitorchi Goriani. 282 pp.

Meneghini G. 1855. Nuovi fossili toscani illustrati dal prof.G. Meneghini. In: Appendice alle Considerazioni sulla Geologiastratigrafica Toscana dei Professori Cavaliere P. Savi eG. Meneghini. 40 pp.

Meneghini G. 1865. Saggio sulla costituzione geologica della provinciadi Grosseto. Firenze: Tipografia di G. Barbera. 45 pp.

Mercati M. opera postuma, 1719. Michaelis Mercati SamminiatensisMetallotheca. Opus posthumum. Auctoritate et MunificentiaClementis Undecimi P.M. e tenebris in lucem eductum; Operaautem et studio Ioannis Mariae Lancisii Archiatri Pontificiiillustratum. Cui accessit appendix cum XIX recens inventis iconibus.Apud Io. Mariam Salvioni Typographum Vaticanum in Archigym-nasio Sapientiae, Roma. 431 pp.

Michelotti G. 1841. Saggio storico dei rizopodi caratteristici dei terrenisopracretacei. Memorie di matematica e di fisica della societaitaliana delle scienze residente in Modena, tomo XXII, parte IIcontenente le memorie di fisica. 51 pp.

Morello N. 2003. The question on the nature of fossils in the 16th and17th centuries. In: Vai GB, Cavazza W, editors. Four centuries of theword geology: Ulisse Aldrovandi 1603 in Bologna. Bologna:Minerva Edizioni. p. 127–151.

Moro AL. 1740. De’ crostacei e degli altri marini corpi che si truovanosu’ monti. Venezia: Appresso Stefano Monti. 452 pp.

Moscardo L. 1656. Note overo memorie del Museo del Conte LodovicoMoscardo nobile veronese. Verona: Per Andrea Rossi. 488 pp.

Negri A. 1891. Sopra alcuni fossili raccolti nei Calcari Grigi dei SetteComuni. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 10:309–331.

Nelson CM. 1968. Ammonites: Ammon’s Horns into cephalopods. J SocBibl Nat Hist. 5:1–18.

Nicolis E, Parona CF. 1885. Note stratigrafiche e palentologiche sul Giurasuperiore della Provincia di Verona. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 4:1–96.

Pareto L. 1846. Cenni geologici sulla Liguria marittima. Genova:Tipografia Ferrando. 105 pp.

Parona CF. 1890. Radiolarie nei noduli selciosi del calcare giuresi diCittiglio presso Laveno. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 9:132–181.

Parona CF. 1898. Contribuzione alla conoscenza delle ammoniti liassichedella Lombardia. Geneve: Imprimerie Rey & Malavallon. 25 pp.

Passeri G. 1775. Della storia de’ fossili dell’agro pesarese, e d’altri luoghivicini. Bologna: Nella Stamperia del Longhi. 368 pp.

Piccoli G. 1739. Ragguaglio di una grotta, ove sono molte ossa di Belvediluviane nei Monti Veronesi, e dei Luoghi in quei contorni; e Stratidi Pietra, tra i quali stanno i Corni Ammoni; e ove si ritrovano altreProduzioni maritime impietrite, e come in Dissegno si dimostra. Conriflessioni sopra queste materie. Verona: Nella Stamperia dei FratelliMerlo. 42 pp.

Pilla L. 1845a. Saggio comparativo dei terreni che compongono il suolod’Italia. Pisa: Presso i Fratelli Nistri. 137 pp.

Pilla L. 1845b. Ricerche intorno alla vera posizione geologica del terrenodel Macigno in Italia e nel mezzogiorno d’Europa seguita da alcunelettere intorno al terreno cretaceo delle Alpi Venete. Pisa: DallaTipografia della Minerva. 31 pp.

Pilla L. 1847. Trattato di Geologia. Pisa: Tipografia Vannucchi. 550 pp.Rodolico F. 1963. L’Esplorazione Naturalistica dell’Appennino. Firenze:

Le Monnier. 433 pp.Romano M. 2013. ‘The vain speculation disillusioned by the sense’: the

Italian painter Agostino Scilla (1629–1700) called ‘The Dis-coloured’, and the correct interpretation of fossils as ‘lithifiedorgaxnisms’ that once lived in the sea. Hist Biol., doi:10.1080/08912963.2013.825257.

Rossi A. 1882. La Provincia di Treviso, Parte Prima, RegioneOccidentale. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 1:203–221.

Rossi A. 1884. Note illustrative alla Carta Geologica della provincia diTreviso. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 3:131–160.

Rudwick MJS. 1972. The meaning of fossils: episodes in the history ofpaleontology. London/New York: Macdonald/American Elsevier,Inc. 304 pp.

Salgari E. 2004. Alla Conquista di un Impero. Milano: Fabbri Editori.515 pp.

Santantonio M. 1993. Facies associations and evolution of pelagiccarbonate platform/basin systems: examples from the ItalianJurassic. Sedimentology. 40:1039–1067.

Sarti C. 1993. Il Kimmeridgiano delle Prealpi veneto-trentine, fauna ebiostratigrafia. Mem Mus Civ St Nat Ver. 5:5–203.

Sarti C. 1994. Le ammoniti nella storia della geologia, tra XVI e XXsecolo. Museol Scient. 11(1–2):13–28.

Sarti C. 2003a. The geology collections in Aldrovandi’s Museum. In: VaiGB, Cavazza W, editors. Four centuries of the word geology: UlisseAldrovandi 1603 in Bologna. Bologna: Minerva Edizioni. p. 153–167.

Sarti C. 2003b. The Istituto delle Scienze in Bologna and its geologicaland palaeontological collections in the 18th century. In: Vai GB,Cavazza W, editors. Four centuries of the word geology: UlisseAldrovandi 1603 in Bologna. Bologna: Minerva Edizioni. p. 204–219.

Savi P, Meneghini G. 1851. Considerazioni sulla geologia stratigraficadella Toscana. Firenze: Presso Jacopo Grazzini. 249 pp.

Scilla A. 1670. La vana speculazione disingannata dal senso. Letteraresponsiva circa i corpi marini che petrificati si truovano in varijluoghi terrestri. Naples: Appresso Andrea Colicchia. 168 pp.

Secco A. 1888. Il piano ad Aspidoceras acanthicum Op. in Collalto diSolagna. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 7:196–202.

Seguenza G. 1862. Notizie succinte intorno alla costituzione geologicadei terreni terziarii del distretto di Messina. Messina: DallaStamperia di Tommaso Capra. 84 pp.

Seguenza G. 1885. La Spiriferina dei varii piani del Lias messinese. BollSoc Geol Ital. 4:377–498.

Historical Biology 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4

Sismonda A. 1848. Notizie e schiarimenti sulla costituzione delle Alpipiemontesi. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze diTorino, Serie II (10). 123 pp.

Sismonda A. 1852. Classificazione dei terreni stratificati delle Alpi tra ilMonte Bianco e la Contea di Nizza. Memorie della Reale Accademiadelle Scienze di Torino, Serie II (12). 70 pp.

Soldani A. 1780. Saggio orittografico ovvero osservazioni sopra le terrenautilitiche ed ammonitiche della Toscana. Siena: Nella Stamperia diVincenzo Pazzini Carli e Figli. 146 pp.

Spada GG. 1737. Dissertazione ove si prova, che li Petrificati CorpiMarini, che nei Monti adiacenti a Verona si trovano, non sonoScherzi di Natura, ne Diluviani; ma Antediluviani. Verona: PerDionigi Ramanzini Librajio. 23 pp.

Stelluti F. 1637. Trattato del legno fossile minerale nuovamente scoperto,nel quale brevemente si accenna la varia e mutabil natura di dettolegno, rappresentatori con alcune figure, che mostrano il luogo dovenasce, la diversita dell’onde, che in esso si vedono, e le sue cosi variee maravigliose forme. Roma: Appresso Vitale Mascardi. 12 pp.

Taramelli T. 1885. Note geologiche sul bacino idrografico del fiumeTicino. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 4:239–336.

Terrenzi G. 1886. Sopra un lembo di Lias Rosso Ammonitico rinvenutonella montagna di Santacroce presso Narni. Boll Soc Geol Ital.5:39–41.

Tommasi A. 1885. Notizie Paleontologiche. Boll Soc Geol Ital.4:199–222.

Tozzetti T. 1768. Relazioni d’alcuni viaggi fatti in diverse parti dellaToscana per osservare le produzioni naturali, e gli antichi monumentidi essa. Firenze: Nella Stamperia Granducale, per GaetanoCambiagi. 480 pp.

Tuccimei GA. 1883. Sulla struttura e i terreni che formano la catena diFara in Sabina. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 2:16–39.

Tuccimei GA. 1887. Il sistema liassico di Roccantica e i suoi fossili. BollSoc Geol Ital. 6:117–158.

Vai GB. 2003a. A liberal diluvianism. In: Vai GB, Cavazza W, editors.Four centuries of the word geology: Ulisse Aldrovandi 1603 inBologna. Bologna: Minerva Edizioni. p. 221–249.

Vai GB. 2003b. Aldrovandi’s Will: introducting the term ‘Geology’ in1603. In: Vai GB, Cavazza W, editors. Four centuries of the wordgeology: Ulisse Aldrovandi 1603 in Bologna. Bologna: MinervaEdizioni. p. 65–110.

Vai GB. 2007. A history of chronostratigraphy. Stratigraphy. 4:83–97.Vai GB. 2009. Light and shadow: the status of Italian geology around

1807. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ. 317:179–202.Vai GB, Cavazza W. 2006. Ulisse Aldrovandi and the origin of geology

and science. In: Vai GB, Caldwell WGE, editors. The origin ofgeology in Italy. Geological Society of America Special Paper Vol.411. p. 43–63.

Vallisneri A. 1721. De’ Corpi marini, che su’ Monti si trovano; della loroOrigine; e dello stato del Mondo avanti l’Diluvio, nel Diluvio, e dopoil Diluvio: Lettere critiche di Antonio Vallisneri, Pubblico PrimarioProfessore di Medicina Teorica nell’Universita’ di Padova. Con leAnnotazioni, alle quali s’aggiungono tre altre Lettere Critiche contrale Opere del Sig. Andry, Francese, e suoi Giornali. A Sua Eccellenzala Signora Contessa D. Clelia Grillo-Borromea. Venice: DomenicoLovisa. 254 pp.

Various authors. 1831. Dizionario delle Scienze Naturali. Firenze:Battelli e Figli. 630 pp.

Verri A. 1884. Divisione tra le formazioni liasiche, giuresi e cretacee neimonti dell’Umbria. Boll Soc Geol Ital. 3:109–113.

Zittel KA. 1901. History of geology and palaeontology to the end of thenineteenth century. London/New York: Walter Scott, PaternosterSquare/Charles Scribner’s Sons. 562 pp.

22 M. Romano

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ita S

tudi

la S

apie

nza]

at 0

0:25

24

Febr

uary

201

4