284 Prof. Sedgwick's Reply to some Statements 



must inevitably have been understood by myself as relating only 

 to certain Oolitic species, unless the contrary were expressed, 

 which assuredly it was not. Again, Mr. Bowerbank states that 

 my verbal reply (at Ipswich) was considered by him " as equi- 

 valent to a refusal ; " and that the subject could not afterwards 

 be introduced to me, " without the appearance of undue impor- 

 tunity.^' All this is perfectly consistent. If the Palseontogra- 

 phical Society thought that I had refused the loan of the Oolitic 

 fossils in 1849 or 1850, it was perfectly natural for them to 

 abstain in 1851 from any request respecting the Cambridge 

 Palaeozoic fossils. In one word, I knew exactly what had taken 

 place at Cambridge during Professor Edwards's visit, and Mr. 

 Bowerbank did not ; and hence originated that verbal misun- 

 derstanding I have just pointed out. 



Since the above correspondence closed, I have had a second 

 communication from Professor Edwards (Paris, Feb. 4, 1854), 

 in which he now gives me the positive grounds of his statement 

 respecting Cambridge. Among other matters he quotes a letter 

 of Professor M'Coy (dated March 15, 1850, and now in Pro- 

 fessor Edwards's possession at Paris) " relative to the Oolitic 

 corals/^ and without a word of reference to any others. Professor 

 M'Coy's letter contains a copy of a note he had just received 

 from myself, which was painfully written with the left hand ; 

 a fact which fixes its date to March 1850, were there no other 

 evidence. My note concludes with the following words : " Pray 

 explain to Mr. Bowerbank that the fossils {i. e. 'the Oolitic 

 corals ' as they are expressly called by Professor M^Coy) are the 

 property of the University, and are in daily use among the stu- 

 dents, in the way of consultation, and that it is impossible for 

 me to send them away to Paris ; but all other help in my power 

 shall be given, and every facility for making drawings, &c." 



When I lately saw my left-handed note, I was afraid that it 

 might have been written in a petulant spirit ; for I was at the 

 time in much suffering, and neither Professor M'Coy nor myself 

 had been quite pleased with the reserve of MM. Edwards and 

 Haime. When at Cambridge they accepted his services for a 

 specific object, and they did not afterwards condescend to inform 

 him or me that those services would not be wanted. There is, 

 however, as I rejoice to find, no petulance in my note. 



What took place at Cambridge (in 1849?), when it was visited 

 by Professor Edwards and his distinguished fellow-labourer, is 

 stated in Professor McCoy's letter. It was my great misfortune 

 not to be present, and I only know the facts at second-hand. 

 But, soon afterwards, I met Professor Edwards in London, who 

 spoke in courteous and, as I thought, in warm terms of his re- 

 ception by Professor M'Coy; and I declare, with the sincerity 



