Prof. Hitchcock's Rejoinder to Dr. Deane. 393 



might anticipate me in giving an account of the tracks ; or that he 

 had any intention or wish to do so.* Indeed, excepting a single 

 specimen, I had all the facts in my possession, and how could I 

 fear that any one could publish them ? I knew that Dr. Deane's 

 examination consisted only of an occasional inspection of two or 

 three specimens of one species as they lay in the streets. I knew 

 that he had not visited a single quarry, nor had searched for the 

 tracks of living animals in museums and by the rivers. His opin- 

 ion, therefore, had no weight in removing my doubts ; and even 





* Postscript.— On seeing this statement in my manuscript, Prof. Silliman kindly 

 reminded me of the following extract from my letter to him of July 30th, 1885, 

 which, without explanation, seems to justify the suspicions of Dr. Deane, and did 

 probably originate them. After saying that I did not wish to announce my con- 

 clusions " until I well understood the case," I add : " My intention is, to offer you 

 a paper on the subject for the January number of the Journal. I shall give to Dr. 

 Deane the credit of having first put me on the track after these relics; but I hope 

 you will delay his descriptions until you receive mine : as I am sure I shall bo 

 able to present a more full and satisfactory view of the case than he can do." 

 And this was written in reply to the following request from Prof. Silliman, in a 

 letter of July 22d, 1835 :— " I suppose you have seen the so-called bird tracks on 

 red sandstone, near the ichthyolite locality. Dr. James Deane of Greenfield sent 

 me a plaster cast and a description, which I would publish if I were sure there is 

 no mistake in the affair. Will you give me your opinion; for I should not like 

 to make a stare about birds as early as the new red sandstone, and then be laugh- 

 ed at as was for his ." From this letter I understood that the idea of 



publishing this description originated with Prof. Silliman, and not with Dr. Deane. 

 And as I was proceeding with the investigation of the case, I thought I might re- 

 quest him, on the score of personal friendship at least, to delay his publication 

 till I had finished my researches and made out my account, especially as my opin- 

 ion seemed important to him in coming to a decision, and I did not wish to have 

 that made public till I could mature and fortify it much more. I supposed that of 

 course the descriptions must be those of Dr. Deane, similar to those he had sent 

 me,— only first impressions from a single specimen,— and I had proceeded so far 

 in my examinations, as to make me feel that it was no vanity to say, that my final 

 account must be more satisfactory than any he could produce from the means 1 

 knew him to possess, or rather without any specimens. I confess, (and I hope 

 naturalists will not judge me too severely here,) that I did feel a desire, when I 

 found how rich a field I had entered, to bring out its first scientific description ; 

 and not to have geologists prejudiced against the whole subject by a premature 

 account, which, even with Prof. Silliman's skill, with the means in his hand, 

 must have been scantv and crude. A letter from him of August 6th, in reply to 

 mine, could not but confirm my impressions that the idea of publication was his 

 own. He says-" I am much gratified that you are seriously at work upon the 

 turkey tracks or bird tracks of whatever kind they may be ; and you may rest 

 assured that I shall publish nothing upon the subject until I receive it from you. 

 I will, therefore, expect you to do justice to Dr. Deane, as you are perfectly ac- 

 quainted with the circumstances; and if you see Dr. Deane, I will thank you to 



