_Cum 4 tabl.aen.4 maj._ Gottingae, 1803.
[94] Faujas Saint-Fond wrote articles on fossil bones (1794); on fossil plants both of France (1803) and of Monte Bolca (1820); on a fish from Nanterre (1802) and a fossil turtle (1803); on two species of fossil ox, whose skulls were found in Germany, France, and England (1803), and on an elephant's tusk found in the volcanic tufa of Darbres (1803); on the fossil shells of Mayence (1806); and on a new genus (_Clotho_) of bivalve shells.
[95] _Sur les ossemens qui se trouvent dans le gyps de Montmartre_ (_Bulletin des sciences pour la Societe philomatique_, tomes 1, 2, 1798, pp.

154-155).
[96] The following account is translated from the fourth edition of the _Ossemens fossiles_, vol.1., 1834, also the sixth edition of the _Discours_, separately published in 1830.

It does not differ materially from the first edition of the _Essay on the Theory of the Earth_, translated by Jameson, and republished in New York, with additions by Samuel L.Mitchell, in 1818.
[97] In the first edition of the _Theorie_ he says fifteen years, writing in 1812.

In the later edition he changed the number of years to thirty.
[98] De Blainville is inclined to make light of Cuvier's law and of his assumptions; and in his somewhat cynical, depreciatory way, says: "Thus for the thirty years during which appeared the works of M.G.
Cuvier on fossil bones, under the most favorable circumstances, in a kind of renascence of the science of organization of animals, then almost effaced in France, aided by the richest osteological collections which then existed in Europe, M.G.Cuvier passed an active and a comparatively long life, in a region abounding in fossil bones, without having established any other principle in osteology than a witticism which he had been unable for a moment to take seriously himself, because he had not yet investigated or sufficiently studied the science of organization, which I even doubt, to speak frankly, if he ever did.
Otherwise, he would himself soon have perceived the falsity of his assertion that a single facet of a bone was sufficient to reconstruct a skeleton from the observation that everything is harmoniously correlated in an animal.

It is a great thing if the memory, aided by a strong imagination, can thus pass from a bone to the entire skeleton, even in an animal well known and studied even to satiety; but for an unknown animal, there is no one except a man but slightly acquainted with the anatomy of animals who could pretend to do it.