292 Mr. Toulmin Smith on the Formation 



science, but mere empiricism, is founded entirely upon the strong* 

 felt necessity within Professor Owen^s mind of continually being 

 guided by such " dogmas ^^ as many of his predecessors have per- 

 chance regarded only with a smile. If, on view of an analogy, 

 inquirers would ask themselves whether, in the two or more 

 cases before them, they can for analogy read homology , they 

 would save vast confusion in science and promote vastly the dis- 

 covery of truth. Such was my aim in reminding the reader of 

 the " dogma ^' which has excited Mr. BowerbanVs smile. Num- 

 berless illustrations, without the guide of this principle, would 

 have been valueless ; with it, any one becomes sufficient. 



Every one knows that sponges are found, among other things, 

 in flints. It is the announcement of this as an explanation uni- 

 versally applicable to the origin and cause of the formation of 

 ALL flints which is the point. I have undertaken to show that 

 that theory is a mere " anticipation,^^ founded only upon a few 

 vague and very loose and casual analogies ; and that it afibrds no 

 true "interpretation^^ of the phsenomena, for that the mass of 

 real facts is full of " dissimilitudes.^^ Mr. Bowerbank has pro- 

 fessed to reply to my observations ; and the fact that he has done 

 so shows the importance of having the matter thoroughly sifted, 

 in order to get at the truth. 



Mr. Bowerbank has, however, not replied to my observations. 

 He does not appear, indeed, to have read my former paper 

 through, as the greater part of my arguments are left wholly 

 untouched, and he has, , in very many cases, represented me as 

 saying that which I nowhere say — in many cases the exact 

 reverse of what I do say*. In other and numerous instances, 

 the issues raised and discussed by him are wholly immaterial. 

 I pass by the very distinct intimation, more than once so com- 

 placently given, of my hardy ignorance ; as that is a mode of 

 meeting an argument sanctioned by such long prescription, that 

 it cannot fail to have its due eff'ect on every candid reader. 



In order to save needless length, I shall now show, — 1st, in 

 what cases I have been misrepresented or unread ; 2nd, in what 

 cases immaterial issues have been raised ; 3rd, what arguments 

 have been left untouched ; 4th, the unsatisfactory explanations 

 attempted of the facts named and of the specimens figured in 

 my former paper ; 5th, some further illustrations which occur to 

 me explanatory of the formation of flint. 



1. I certainly did not conceive it necessary to add an inter- 

 pretation clause to my paper, giving the reader credit for at least 

 understanding that when I used one word, I meant something 



* I beg to refer the reader, for some admirable remarks on this tendency 

 and its mischiefs, to Dr. A. Combe's " Letter to Dr. Forbes," in the * Medical 

 Review' for Jan. 1847. 



