as advocated by M, Elie de Beaumont. 129 



of M. de Beaumont, I concluded from the facts we possess, that 

 one could not admit the general coincidence betzveen the direc- 

 tions of' the beds and the chains^ the constant paralleUsm of the 

 dislocations of the same epoch, and of contemporaneous chains^ 

 and the constant non-parallelism of chains and upraised strata 

 of different epochs, (See my Resume des Progres de la Geologie 

 for 1832 in the Bullet, de la Soc. Geol. de France, p. cxxii.) 



M. de Beaumont still continues to explain the foundations of his 

 theory as formerly, and one would think either that he must 

 be correct, or that he kindly endeavoured to spare disgrace to me 

 and others who think as I do. In a case of this kind, the interests 

 of science should get beyond such trifling considerations. But 

 it strikes one with astonishment to find that his views, when 

 unfolded to us, do not at all correspond with his programme. 



First, he thought it necessary to warn us, that, owing to the 

 spherical form of the earth, the lines of elevation must have 

 described sections of circles, and that they exist upon the tan- 

 gents of these last. In regard to small sections of circles, this 

 information was hardly necessary, but for those which are con- 

 siderable, as, for instance, that of the Apennines, the Carpa- 

 thians, (see Bullet, de la Soc. Geol. de France, vol. iv. p. 73), 

 and some chains of Asia, it is essential that M. de Beaumont 

 should explain himself clearly, and discuss the objections made 

 to his opinions ; a course which he has not followed. 



Afterwards, when comparing his sections of circles with the 

 hnes of the meridian, he contends, in regard to the one, that he 

 has in view only small sections of great circles, (p. 633) ; and 

 as to the other, that he is not able to see the " limite k la dis- 

 tance k laquelle il serait possible de suivre des accidens de sou- 

 levement constamment soumis a une meme loi," (p. 622.) Now 

 M. de Beaumont himself says, " deux grands cercles se cou- 

 paht necessairement en deux points diametralement opposes ne 

 peuvent jamais etre paralleles dans le sens ordinaire de ce mot."" 

 (p. 622.) But I leave this discussion, fearing lest it should be 

 considered as belonging to the chicanery of words ; and I now 

 come to the facts and assertions by which it appears that M. de 

 Beaumont reconciles his doctrine deduced from the parallelism 

 of direction. I rest satisfied with transcribing the following four 



VOL. XVIT. NO. XXXIII. .JULY 1834. I 



