360 Notices of Books. [July, 
‘‘ Fourthly: if a circulation were caused by differences of 
specific gravity, or any other effects resulting from differences 
of temperature between the Equatorial and Polar regions, it has 
been shown that the currents would flow towards the Equator on 
the west of the ocean, eastwards through the Equatorial regions, 
and from the Equator on the east of the ocean, and this course, 
which would certainly result from Dr. Carpenter’s theory, is 
exactly the reverse of that of the currents which form the 
horizontal circulation in the Equatorial regions. 
‘«‘Fifthly: Dr. Carpenter adapts the Mediterranean theory 
to what is known of the vertical circulation of the temperate 
and equatorial regions by reversing the action of surface-heat 
from that admitted in the former regions; this strategic move- 
ment, however, seems to be a descent from bad to worse, for by 
it the theory appears to be placed in direct antagonism with the 
source of its own creation; namely, the vertical circulation in 
the Polar regions. And—to follow the parallel suggested in 
Sir Roderick Murchison’s contingent eulogy—this gross deviation 
from consistency has led Dr. Carpenter into such confusion that 
where veins and arteries interlace he hastaken up veins for arteries 
and treated arteries for veins, even supposing his location of the 
heart to be exact; but in this he has made a still more grievous 
mistake in imagining that source of circulation to le divided in 
the cold extremities of the earth instead of in the vast expanse 
of the Equatorial regions. 
‘‘Dr. Carpenter’s theory of the action of surface-cold may 
prove most valuable in the consideration of minor details of 
oceanic circulation. But as a cause of the main features of 
the existing circulation it is so absurdly incongruous and in- 
adequate that in this Essay Dr. Carpenter must be said to have 
lowered himself to the level of a ‘mere’ theorist. The negative 
reply to the question whether the ‘so-called’ explanation of 
oceanic circulation is or is not the ‘veal’ explanation, is so 
glaringly obvious that it is surprising how any one acquainted 
with the subject could be so infatuated as to take the false course 
in which Dr. Carpenter has involved himself. It is a degradation 
of the term ‘scientific’ to apply it to such theorising. How 
much more really scientific—how much nobler is the spirit of 
the true ‘Physical Geographer’ who completely subordinates 
theory to fact. This is the spirit which breathes through Maury’s 
writings, and enables the reader to turn over the pages with a 
refreshing confidence that he need fear no delusion. A recently 
increasing departure from it in too many English scientific 
writers has culminated in this audacious effusion of Dr. Carpenter’s. 
If such essays are to be brought forward by leaders of English 
science, history will record a degradation of English intellect in 
the present generation; and the laurel which the civilised world 
by acclamation placed on England’s brow, in honour of Newton’s 
discoveries, will soon be torn away to be worn elsewhere.” 
