On the Cosmogony of Moses. ' 21 



adding that ''the question has been decided in his favour by a 

 third person," competent and impartial, to whose satisfactory 

 remarks he refers. It is indeed true, that in the remarks re- 

 ferred to, there are unsupported assertions that the order of 

 testacea is destitute of locomotion : if this, therefore, be suffi- 

 cient, the question is certainly decided against me. Having, 

 however, a presentiment, that, notwithstanding the " cramhe 

 repetita," Dr. Prichard will condescend to honour this letter 

 with some notice, I am desirous of appealing from this decision, 

 even to klmself, and would venture directly to ask him, ivhether 

 the whole order of testacea be destitute of locomotion* P If on 

 recollection, after consulting naturalists, it be found that an af- 

 firmative answer carmot be given, he will, it may be supposed, 

 be constrained, at the expense of his coincidences, to restore at 

 least a part of the order to X\\c fifth duTj's creation. I have yet 

 one other question, to which it more nearly concerns him to re- 

 turn an explicit answer. He peremptorily and tauntingly af- 

 firms, that I declare corals and bivalves are locomotive ani- 

 mals. Of the part of this assertion which relates to bivalves 

 I ask for no explanation, though it may easily be perceived that 

 some of them were meant to be included in the portion of the 

 order of testacea excepted from being " iudisputahly endued 

 with locomotion \ ; but I am entitled to ask where Dr. Prichard 

 found, either directly or even hy inference, the declaration he 

 attributes to me, that corals are locomotive animals? My 

 assertion respecting locomotive animals (as has just been seen) 

 instead of extending beyond, did not even include the whole or- 

 der of testacea; and with regard to corals, as comprehended in 

 zoophytes, it will be seen that the motion which it cannot be 



* The genus Janthina (for example) " formed by Lamarck on a single 

 shell described by Lister, Brown, Fofbkal, and othei- naturalists; which 

 derives its claims of distinction from Helix, not so much from the cliarac- 

 ter of the shell as from that oF the animul, which differs in its structure 

 materially from the animal of the Helix, sinre it h furnished with a curious 

 apparatus (beinj; an inhabitant of the se:\) fur swimming, instead of that for 

 crawling, with which t/ie Helices are provided." — See Nicholson's Euoyclo- 

 padia, article SlieU. 



t Some bivalves, even of the genua Ostrea, give indisputable proofs of 

 locomotive powers. " Scallops leap out of the water to the distance of half a 

 yard." (NichoKon's Encyclopedia.) Speaking of the same bivalve, Bur- 

 row in, liis Concholopy, paf;e 80, says, " Stroiij!; locomotive powers have 

 been attributed to the Pecten, which are, it is s:ud, exerted in a most 

 singular manner. A very rapid progress is effected by the sudden opening 

 and closing of the shell.' This is done with so much muscular force as to 

 throw it four or five inches at a time. In the water an e(|ual dexterity is 

 evinced by the animal, in raisini; himself to the surface, directing his course 

 ad libitum, and suddenly, by the shutting of his valves, dropping to the 

 bottom." 



B o denied 



