tongue stone

He compared the teeth of the shark with the common fossil objects known as tongue stones.

In 1616 Fabio Colonna argued that tongue stones were really just shark teeth.

He also correctly identified the supposedly magical objects that were called glossopetrae, or "tongue stones", as the teeth of sharks.

The Europeans in the 1600's called fossils 'tongue stones,' because they thought they were implements of the Devil sent to tempt people or disorient them."

Due to this ingrained belief, many noblemen and royalty wore these "tongue stones" as pendants or kept them in their pockets as good-luck charms.

He noted that the shark's teeth bore a striking resemblance to certain stony objects, found embedded within rock formations, that his learned contemporaries were calling glossopetrae or "tongue stones".

He mentioned his findings in a book, The Head of a Shark Dissected, which also contained an illustration of a C. megalodon tooth, previously considered to be a tongue stone.

According to Renaissance accounts, large, triangular fossil teeth often found embedded in rocky formations were believed to be petrified tongues of dragons and snakes and so were referred to as "tongue stones" or "glossopetrae".

Fabio Colonna publishes Ekphrasis altera in Rome, including two appendices, De Purpura and De glossopetris dissertatio, where he argues that "tongue stones" are of organic origin, being shark teeth, glossopetrae.