390 Prof. Hitchcock's Rejoinder to Dr. Deane. 



In the pride of honorable learning, Mr. H. has too far underra- 

 ted my humble exertions to elucidate the history presented by the 

 eloquent imprints upon the sandstones of the Connecticut River. 

 Who first might have seen them is unimportant, so long as the 

 world was none the wiser ; who first proclaimed their true mean- 

 ing, the candid reader must determine. I accord to Mr. H. the 

 highest considerations of respect, for the ability and zeal with 

 which he has followed up a subject which, personally, I must 

 always maintain was begun by me with an earnestness that gave 

 no indications of too hastily abandoning it. I have hitherto re- 

 frained, contrary to the advice of many friends, from entering 

 upon the defence of my labors in this beautiful department of 

 geological science ; and it is with pain and reluctance, that I per- 

 form that service now, for by the common standard of observation, 

 I am sensible that these statements must clash with other views, 

 entertained by one whose friendship I appreciate, and should 

 deeply regret to lose. 



Greenfield, Mass., August 17, 1844. 



Art. XV. — Rejoinder to the preceding Article of Dr. Deane / 



by Prof. Edward Hitchcock. 



The editors of this Journal having kindly put into my hands 

 a proof-sheet* of Dr. Deane's paper on the Discovery of Fossil 

 Footmarks, I feel bound to rejoin a few remarks; seconding 

 earnestly the desire of the editors, that this discussion may close 

 with the present number. 



The extraordinary claims advanced by Dr. Deane, and his se- 

 vere personal crimination, render it necessary for me to be some- 

 what more specific and plain than I have been on some points. 

 I avoided these details in my Report,- (called my " Address" by 

 Dr. D.) in order to save his feelings; and I now make them, as 

 he says he made his, " not to assail his reputation, but to sustain 

 my own." 



* By special agreement between the writers of these discu-ions, their ^ 

 spective proofs are mutually read, each receiving that of his antagonist, 

 object being to close the discussion in the present number, and then to su 



the cause.— Eds. 



