El interés por la Paleontología en el siglo XVIII: análisis del catálogo de la colección Franco Dávila

Abstract

[ES] En la Historia de la Paleontología, el interés por los fósiles y el conocimiento de la naturaleza de los mismos ha pasado por diferentes etapas de las cuales las colecciones formadas son un fiel reflejo. En el presente trabajo, se realiza una aproximación al conocimiento que se tenía a finales del siglo XVIII, acerca de la paleontología, fósiles y yacimientos. Para ello, se ha llevado a cabo un análisis de la parte paleontológica del Catálogo de venta (1767) de la colección Franco Dávila, como ejemplo idóneo, al ser una de las más importantes en Europa en ese momento. Parte del material de dicha colección fue el origen del actual Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, en donde todavía se encuentran algunos ejemplares de esta colección. En dicho análisis, se han tenido en cuenta los criterios imperantes en la época en la formación de colecciones y se ha evaluado el material paleontológico del Catálogo, su procedencia, descripción y posible asignación taxonómica a la luz de los conocimientos paleontológicos actuales.

[EN] In the history of Paleontology, interest in fossils and knowledge of their significance has passed through various stages which is clearly reflected in the char-acter of each collection. The present paper undertakes to approximate the ideas about and knowledge of Palaeontology, fossils and outcrops at the end of the XVIII Century. In order to achieve this, an analysis of the paleontological part of the sales Catalogue of P. Franco Dávila's Collection is carried out, as this was one of the most important collections of the XVlll Century in Europe. Moreover, part of this collection formed the origin of the present day Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales. Nowadays a few specimens of this collection are housed in the Museum. The analysis takes into account the criteria prevalen! in forming collections during this epoch and an attempt has been made to evaluate the specimens, their origin, description and probable taxonomic assignation in the light of present day paleontological knowledge. The study permited us to consider in the analised work that on the one hand, very advanced ideas for the epoch existed such as the fossil's conéept and definitions of their different types which are very close to the presently considered ideas, futhermore a great scientific rigour is evident throughout. The method for identification of specimens by way of comparison with the recent organisms is unusual in that period. In other areas, for example classification, three levels are observed: one, more advanced as occurs with invertebrates whose classification is basically linnean, although neither the taxonomicallevels nor the binomial nomenclature are employed in the same sense as Linné; on another leve), influences from systems used in the XVII Century are still evident where the organisms were grouped according to ecological criteria. This is the case of the Cetacea included under Fish ("Ichtyolites") or hippopotamus under Amphibia ("Anphibiolites"). Finally, in grouping plant remains no classification system is followed, grouping them by vegetative parts. In spite of the above mentioned the material that comprised this Cabinet was the result of the selection made by a collectionist, not by a naturalist as is demonstrated by the size, beauty, remote places, terathologies, and good preservation state of the specimens. As a final note, we should mention the presence ofdecorative elements made from natural materials, which are described and classified together with the rest of the specimens by their biological characteristics. Nevertheless, many specimens are so clearly identifiable that Linné refers to them in his Sistema Naturae editions published after Franco Dávila's Catalogue.