Yorkshire Philosophical Society

Event Information

Lilies of the Sea: Martin Lister (1639-1712), crinoid fossils and chemical theories of fossilisation  

Prof. Anna Marie Roos, FLS FSA | Professor of the History of Science and Medicine, College of Arts, University of Lincoln. 
Editor, Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science

In the late seventeenth century, several luminaries in the early Royal Society debated the origins of fossils. The naturalist John Ray (1627-1705) and microscopist Robert Hooke (1635-1703) argued that fossils were remnants of past animal and plant life, although they differed in opinion of “how fossil-bearing strata had been deposited”.  Since the Christian creed taught that all species were created in Genesis, any ideas of species becoming extinct were considered heterodox. On the other hand, Dr Martin Lister (1639-1712), the first scientific arachnologist and conchologist, stated that fossils were not always remains of living creatures, but could be created spontaneously by nature as part of her inherent “generative powers”. He represented the views of early modern naturalists who postulated that metals and minerals were spontaneously nurtured and generated in deep mines considered to be Mother Nature’s womb, and stones that resembled living creatures could be generated without any organic origins.  In other words, although we think of fossils as remains of living creatures, many seventeenth-century investigators thought these stones could be created spontaneously by nature as part of her inherent “generative powers”.  Underground aquifers carrying waters with generative seeds were thought to form rocks and minerals in the heat below ground. Mineral-generating seeds in the atmosphere could also be responsible for fossilisation. Lister’s explanation of these “generative powers” and “seeds” were all differing adaptations of, or reactions to, Belgian physician Johann Van Helmont’s (1579-1644) theories in saline chemistry. Lister’s claims over the origin of crinoid or sea lily fossils, as explained in his 1673 paper for the Royal Society, the earliest known journal article on the science of palaeontology, will be utilised as a case study to elucidate the fossil controversy and what he believed was a chemical basis of fossil formation.

7pm in the Tempest Anderson Lecture Theatre in the Yorkshire Museum

All Welcome. This is a free event although donations are also welcome.

Member’s report:

Armed with a hefty chunk of fossiliferous limestone, which – having lugged into the auditorium – she exhorted audience-members to examine, Anna Marie Roos (University of Lincoln) gave a fascinating account of the late 17th Century origins of palaeontological science. York was at the forefront, thanks to the ground-breaking work of Martin Lister, and Anna Marie described how the organisms we now know as sea lilies – crinoids – were central to Lister’s exploration of the fossilization process.

Known colloquially as St Cuthbert’s beads, and more formally as trochites, these curious structures were common in limestones across the north-east of England. But were they animal, vegetable, or mineral? As a newly practising physician in York, Lister was well-placed to investigate. In 1673, he wrote to Henry Oldenburg, secretary of the recently founded Royal Society, setting out his arguments in ‘A description of certain stones figured like plants, and by some observing men esteemed to be plants petrified.’

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rstl.1673.0061

Anna Marie explained that, in the early years of the Royal Society, fossil-philosophers fell into two broad camps. One – led by John Ray and Robert Hooke – argued that fossils were the lithified remains of long-dead organisms. The other, to which Lister belonged, preferred to explain their formation by plastic forces inherent within nature. Religion played a large part in the discussions: it was heretical to consider that fossils could be the remains of extinct animals. Generally preferable was the idea that they were the result of Nature’s inherent generative powers: shapes grown in the womb of Mother Earth, or the bowels of the Earth.

Even though Lister was mistaken in his conclusions, his methods were pioneering. Anna Marie noted that her former colleague, the late Martin Brasier of Oxford University, regarded Lister’s 1673 letter as the first example of palaeobiological science.  Lister studied the natural world in a thorough, systematic, scientific manner, describing what he saw, comparing new material with existing collections, and proposing interpretations. Even more remarkably, he trained his daughters Susanna and Anna as two of the very first scientific illustrators, and microscopists, here in York.

Lister might not have worked out what crinoids really were, but he helped develop the methods with which subsequent researchers could. As a result, we were able to admire Anna Marie’s lump of limestone in a whole new light.

Dr Liam Herringshaw