Dt. Thomson' — andhis Jinswer. 351 



38.9375. So erroneous is he in this most simple matter ! In 

 fine, nothing is clear from this memoir, except the elaborate stu- 

 pidity of its author. 



In the answer we have three vain pages on mineralogy, but Dr. 

 Thomson is careful to suppress the private reason, why Professor 

 Jameson's name is erased from his references at the bottom of 

 the pages of his sixth edition, while the text is retained ; why 

 every reference to the Scotish Mineralogist is expunged: and 

 why, though in the sixth edition of the System, he has re- 

 tained, most servilely, the long chapter " Of Compound 

 Rocks," amounting to 35 pages, borrowed in his fifth from 

 Professor Jameson's Geonosy, he has now obliterated the fol- 

 lowing note acknowledging the obligation ! " For to that im- 

 portant work (Jameson's Elements of Geonosy,) I earnestly 

 recommend the attention of every mineralogist. The sketch in 

 the text, though only a very short abridgment, is as detailed as 

 is consistent with the nature of the present work, I was indebted 

 to Professor Jameson for the whoi.'E of the 7naterials out of which 

 it was formed." 



Under "Analysis of Minerals" in his " Answer," he says, "The 

 Reviewer has pointed out one or two typographical errors, and 

 invented as many more." This is a palpable falsehood. The 

 blunders pointed out by the Reviewer, in Thomson's Chapter oa 

 the Analysis of IVIinerals, arise not from the carelessness of the 

 printer, but the habitual inaccuracy of the author, v^ich is 

 here so redundant as to leave no room for invention on th« 

 Reviewer's part. 



His assertion about liquid muriatic acid we had nearly passed 

 over. We affirm that such experimental results as he gives, 

 were never obtained ; for they are impossible ; and if he knew 

 any thing of Chemical Arithmetic, he would not have offered 

 them to the public. The demonstration is given in the Review, 

 as clearly as numbers can make it. If he wants more evidence 

 • on this subject, he will find it in the last number but one, of this 

 Journal. 



With what decency or prudence can Dr. Thomson speak of 

 the severity of cur censure of Berzelius' mineralogy in an early 

 number of this Journal, when he himself v/as, the sole cause of 

 that severity, by ushering before the English public a pretended 

 translation of the Swedish work, so distorted and erroneous 

 as to excite the grief and indignation of its celebrated author, 

 and to lead him to lay a formal charge of something like lite- 

 rary fraud against Dr. Thomson, before the tribunal of European 

 science * ! 



We have taken some pains to ascertain how far Dr. Thomson 

 is correct in what he says, pages 253 and 254 of his Answer^ 



« See the complaint of Berzelius, in our Review of his Treatise on the 

 Blow-Pipe, page 319 of this Number. 

 2 B2 



