Prof. Hitchcock's Rejoinder to Dr. Deane. 397 



Silnman and myself was overcome by his efforts. That distin- 

 guished society understood of course, that Dr. Deane was as 

 much of a geologist in 1835 as in 1842, and the result was just 

 what might be expected ; for while those high-minded men, Dr. 

 Mantell and Mr. Murchison, whose opinion is law in the geo- 

 logical world, awarded me some compliments, they represented 

 me as having acted only a subordinate part in respect to the foot- 

 marks, and made the impression unavoidable, that I had with- 

 held from others the full measure of justice. With the data be- 

 fore them, their impressions were perfectly correct ; and they 

 have gone forth over the whole geological world. To remove 

 them, at least within a limited sphere, has been the grand motive 

 for presenting the statements now made, and especially the letter 

 under consideration. I must leave the future historian of science 

 to complete the work, if he judges I have made out my case. 



As to Dr. Deane's efforts to bring discredit upon my published 

 labors concerning the footmarks, I can only say, that none can 

 feel their imperfection more deeply than myself; and it does not 

 become me to doubt, that had he undertaken it, the work would 

 have been more satisfactorily done ; and if he now obtains the 

 chief honor of it, I could wish he had had the labor, and thus 

 several years of my life have been saved for other purposes. I will 

 add however, that as to most of his criticisms, I am confident he 

 never would have made them, had he ever carefully examined 

 my large collection of specimens, or even other quarries, besides 

 the four or five within six or eight miles of his residence. 



This then is a brief summary of my positions. I declare most 

 emphatically, that I have never received any assistance from Dr. 

 Deane in investigating the footmarks, previous to the publication 

 of my Final Geological Report, except specimens ; and that his 

 early opinion as to their origin had no effect whatever in remo- 

 ving my doubts, or in leading me to my final conclusions, be- 

 cause that opinion was not the result of scientific examination, 

 but of the occasional inspection of a single cloven specimen as 

 it lay for a few weeks in the highway — and because 1 found that 

 the same opinion had been entertained by others many years 

 earlier, and was indeed forced upon every intelligent man, by 

 the first inspection of good specimens. I further maintain, and 

 have endeavored to show chiefly from his own letters, that in 

 1835, when that opinion was given, he was not familiar enough 



Vol. xl vii, No. 2.— July-Sept. 1844. 51 



