4^8-^ Retrospective Criticism, 



Some of the statements contained in that article (p. 24.), which he calls in 

 question, I shall endeavour as briefly as possible to confirm. 



Respecting the first passage with which N. has occasion to find fault, I 

 must candidly admit that it is no peculiarity in the Richmond woods, situate 

 upon the high grounds, to be composed of fir, as such is usually the case, on 

 account of the reasons which your correspondent has mentioned. 



N. says, " May I ask the author of this paper, did he not mean to write 

 metalliferous, when he wrote carboniferous, limestone ?" If N. will take 

 the trouble to refer to Phillips's and Conybeare's Introduction to Geology y 

 at p. 352. he will find the reasons assigned for which the title of carbonife- 

 rous is preferable to any other, or rather, why those authors thought proper 

 to apply the term to the formation in question. 



Since N.'s critical feelings are offended by the term " generally," which 

 I unoffendingly applied to the predominance of mountain lime in the imme- 

 diate neighbourhood of Richmond, I promise him that his eye shall not 

 have again to complain of such " general " imperfections. 



N. seems to doubt that it is the character of the carboniferous limestone 

 (I cannot drop the term consistently) to be full of fissures. If time and 

 space did but permit, I could mention a score of instances sufficient to 

 satisfy any reasonable person ; and such I consider N. to be. If N. is a 

 north-countryman, he has probably at some time or other visited the dis- 

 trict of Craven in Yorkshire. If so, he must remember Wethercat Cave, 

 Hardraw Scar, and some curious funnel-shaped orifices named Hartle Pot 

 and Sand Pot, and numerous others near Malham Tarn and on the base 

 of Ingleborough ; all of which occiu* in the mountain lime. Nay, even 

 rivers which flow through these strata are not unfrequently swallowed up 

 in the earth, and, after flowing for some time underneath, reappear again 

 in the light of day. Such are the Ribble, and the Manifold in Staffordshire, 

 according to Conybeare ,* as also Horton Beck, at the foot of Pennigent in 

 Yorkshire ; all of which flow for some distance under the surface. 



N. forgets that the lead mines, which he says constitute the chief mineral 

 wealth of the country, are from twelve to fifteen miles above Richmond. 

 My observations did not extend so far : I have found lead in small quan- 

 tities within two miles of Richmond. 



To the charge of ambiguity, which N. next brings against me, I plead 

 guilty. By elevation, which I admit is a misappropriation of the term, I 

 meant to signify the thickness of the beds. To the next question which N. 

 offers for solution, I suppose an answer will be expected. My assertion, 

 that the valley of the Swale was narrower in former times (by which I 

 must be understood to mean the valley ascending above Richmond, for 

 below that point I consider the river to enter the plain), though perhaps not 

 an evident conclusion, I still consider highly probable. However, as the 

 supposition gives such offence to your correspondent, I will for the present 

 let it rest. But I would ask N. to what caube does he attribute the forma- 

 tion of valleys ? 



N. laughs at my hypothesis respecting the separation of the Round How 

 from its parent rock ; yet I could cite several instances, such as Hood Hill 

 and Blakey Topping, which perfectly resemble the Round How in form, 

 though upon a larger scale. I should wish these remarks to be received in 

 the candid spirit with which they are offered ; as truth is, or ought to be, the 

 acknowledged aim of both ; yet I would rather N. remained silent, if his 

 inertness requires such astonishing convulsions of nature to awaken its sleep. 

 I remain, &c. — J. E. L. Richmond, Yorkshire, May 3. 1831. 



mUes, or Eagle Stone. (Vols. III. p. 484. and IV. p. 190.)— Sir, In 

 addition to the description given by your able correspondent Mr. Clarke of 

 East Bergholt, at p. 190., I beg to say that those found in Norfolk, and 

 which I have described in the notes appended to my Synoptical Table of 

 British Organic Remains (p. 41 .), are, in my opinion, the true ^tites. Their 



