US : , and mutual re re Ons—iniorn 
"that our knowledge w was confi > wha 
s been observe rd concerning the summits of mountains ; 
their planes and bases ; concerning lakes and valleys; and to 
the removal of immense masses of rock, to great distances; is 
it probable that there could be a philosopher found, who would 
maintain that this amount of knowledge does not, or could 
nok. contribute to furnish the materials for a theory of the 
h? Lean net bahiave it, or ever persuade myself that M. 
Gunes ara meant to maintain such a pro ag ce, His 
vast erudition in eet thing which relates t Physica, 
ence, forbids my believing it ; and I choose to thin that the the 
passages which have been cited are, so to speak, slips of the 
lively pen, of this justly rlehnater author 
A little farther on we read, “It is only by analogy that 
we have extended to Sate formations the conclusion, 
out fossil remains, no one co have maintained that these 
formations had not been minbansens” 
Here | must commence with the same remark that i have 
doing. I all 
above quotation, where he says “ ee if there ° ues exis- 
ted formations without fossil re 
= 
must then acknowledge that it owes every thing to our 
mation of chalk aah, at of the caleaire grossier, if depriv- 
ed of the aid of their imbedded fossils, when there exists 
