SACRED HISTORY OF THE EARTH. 321 



sounds like the birds and quadrupeds. Yet a few make attempts 

 of this sort. As the thunnys sail in their vast shoals, they utter a 

 very loud hissing noise. The ground ling makes a similar sound 

 when handled. The Sciena stridens gives a small shriek when 

 first taken out of the water. And the grunniens Cottus ICottus 

 grunniens] also makes a squeaking sound when handled." So far so 

 good, but what comes next ? " The great Morse roars like a bull 

 if disturbed, and snores while asleep. The common Seal moans 

 piteously. The ursine kind low like an ox, and the leonine one 

 both grunts and snorts." The author adds, indeed, " But all these 

 latter partake largely of the quadruped nature," yet he does not 

 seem to have been aware of the fact that they are not fish at all, 

 but possess both lungs and larynx no less than Mr. Turner 

 himself. 



At p. 276, " Some fish have the comforts of family association {* 

 and in a note we find seals, walruses, porpoises, and manati, 

 quoted in support of this assertion. " One kind has the gratifica- 

 tion of suckling and nursing," and in a note to this passage the 

 author instances whales, seals, morses, and dugons. 



The same errors prevail through the 10th letter, in which the 

 author continually cites the phocine and cetaceous mammalia in 

 proof of the intellectual capacities of fish j nay more, at p. 293 we 

 have the lobster, and, mirabiie dictu, the land-crab thrown into our 

 author's comprehensive fish basket ! 



We may here take notice of a habit which Mr. Turner has of 

 frequently placing the specific term before the generic. Thus we 

 have, pp. 261, 262, Hippuris Coryphana, Auratus Sparus, Glaucus 

 Squalus, Codas Scomber, Hirundo Trigta, Cuculus Trigla, &c. 

 This practice deserves reprobation as unscientific, and very likely 

 to produce confusion. 



At p. 296 we have an instance of the vulgarism of applying the 

 term Animal solely to the mammiferous tribes. This error, 

 though in this place no doubt committed through inadvertency, is 

 yet so common even among persons of education, that it ought not 

 to be passed by unnoticed. 



We now come to make mention of our author's geological 

 theories. In examining such subjects it should be remembered 

 that theoretical reasonings being in great measure matter of 

 opinion, ought never, like erroneous facts, to be visited with 

 reprobation, however unsound or fanciful they may appear. The 

 republic of Science admits not the Inquisition among her institu- 

 tions 3 — her laws are strict and severe in the ascertaining of facts, 

 but are perfectly tolerant towards opinions. Hence it is always 

 allowable to maintain any opinion whatever, and no less so for 

 another person to dissent from such opinion, and calmly to state 

 the reasons of his dissent. We therefore shall make no apology 

 for showing in what points we consider Mr. Turner's geological 

 theories to be defective. 



The theory by which he explains the phenomena of geology is 

 simply this : — actuated by a laudable and pious resolution to 



