the original figure, and the nature of the body formed either
assimilates to the material around it, or is determined by that
of which it is composed. So also all of the substances forming
petrifaction may be found together in the same subject, or they
may accomplish their work separately.

Silicious earth goes largely to form flint quartz and the various
kinds of sandstone carbonate of lime, of limestone, and so of the
other materials mentioned forming their peculiar kinds of stone. I
have heard one statue-theorist trying to prove that the decayed
portion of one of the legs showed the presence of flint, and
therefore he argued it could not be a petrifaction. Not so. It
probably would prove, if true, that the figure was not a statue,
for pieces of flint are not found in such material, unless it be
a petrifaction, in which case silicious earth would account for it.
Now it is safe to say that there is no substance that enters into
the composition of stone that does not enter into the formation
of a petrifaction.

Now, these materials are, in cases of petrifaction, brought to
the spot and deposited by action of the water--precisely such an
operation as forms strata of rock; should it not produce the same
effect in the appearance of successive layers or strata in the
subject of petrifaction? With reference to the other objection
to the theory of petrifaction, viz:--that the members of the body
are conjoined and not detached--it is sufficient to say, from the
very nature of the operation of petrifaction, portions of the body
lying in contact would necessarily be conjoined and filled up. The
wasting portions of the body are silently but surely supplied by
nature, and as the transformation progresses, nature causes her