PROF. G. F. WRIGHT AND HIS CRITICS. 773 



ing and reputation. It is not easy to believe that such a logical 

 fallacy could come from such a source. The ipse dixit of a man 

 in the position of this critic might be entitled to respect, but 

 we have not even that. He can scarcely expect scientists accus- 

 tomed, as the author, to look for arguments to accept this bald 

 statement. It is difficult to treat it seriously. Risum teneatis, 

 amid ? Let him get from the " well-known government geolo- 

 gist," here and thus referred to, a full, exact, and certified state- 

 ment of the conversation over his own signature, giving all de- 

 tails as he recalls them, what he said, where, when, and to whom ; 

 with what was said to him in reply and by whom, and the criti- 

 cism will then be worth consideration. But, as it now stands, it 

 is weaker and feebler than the weakest and feeblest of the cases 

 which Prof. Wright has brought forward. 



Of course, we can only guess who this well-known government 

 geologist can be, but if circumstances indicate correctly it will, in 

 our opinion, be long before any statement such as that above de- 

 sired will be obtained from him to confirm this illogical objection 

 to our author's express assertion. We will further say that the 

 owner of the image positively and emphatically denies in writing- 

 having ever himself made the remark above anonymously quoted, 

 and volunteers the further statement that he knows nothing 

 whatever of the whole alleged occurrence. 



Such insinuations, unaccompanied with evidence and intended 

 to undermine confidence in the results of years of persistent work, 

 are really beneath notice, save to expose their utter logical base- 

 lessness and the animus whose shadow is visible beneath and 

 around them. Let us turn to some criticisms of a different kind. 



There is another tone sometimes adopted, less undignified per- 

 haps, but not less inappropriate and offensive, especially in a sup- 

 posed scientific discussion. It may be called the " omniscient " 

 style. It sounds as if coming from some lofty height wherefrom 

 the writer can discern all the details of a struggle in which the 

 unfortunate actor below is bearing an insignificant part. This 

 style is a danger especially besetting men in official positions. 

 The infallibility of office is well known and sometimes amusing. 

 " No mistakes allowed." It is a form of apostolical succession 

 not unknown in the realm of science. The mantle of Elijah is 

 supposed to rest on Elisha, whether it fits or not. To those official 

 geologists who so far forget themselves as to assume the air of 

 superior knowledge, especially to the younger ones, we respect- 

 fully commend the wise and witty saying of Whewell, the great 

 Master of Trinity, at Cambridge : " Be not too positive ; we are all 

 fallible, even the youngest." 



Some of the remarks on Prof. Wright's book suggest the men- 

 tal attitude above described. A positive statement is made on a 



