On the Cosmogony of Moses. 1 13 



the original text of Genesis conveys." If these words {of loco- 

 motion) were to be found in the original passage referred to, 

 I should acknowledge that the sense now imputed to it might 

 be discovered ; but as they now make their appearance for the 

 first time, the case is somewhat different. In my preceding letter 

 I had defined the sense which I attributed to the Hebrew words 

 more strictly than before, and had mentioned that they convey 

 the idea which the LXX express by the phrase ^c;a s^ttetcJ. It 



was natural that I should suppose that F. E s referred to 



this passage, and not to my first letter, in which I had adopted 

 the less definite translation of " locomotive animals." 



I had hopes, as Mr. Horn seemed inclined to enter into the 

 controversy, of escaping any fiu-ther trouble on the question, 



whether the testacea are locomotive animals; but as F. E r, 



still perseveres in urging that point, I must inform him that he 

 has been fighting all this time against a mere man of straw, a 

 phantom of his own imagination. In my first paper on this 

 subject, I observed in general terms that zoophytes and testacea, 

 not being locomotive animals, are excluded from a place in the 

 creation of the third day. 



I was fully aware that there were some exceptions to this re- 

 mark; but as they are known to every bodv, and bore no relation 

 (as I shall presently prove) to the question in which I was inter- 

 ested, I did not think it necessary to notice them. If F. E s 



had at first candidly conceded the truth of my observations as 

 far as they applied to zoophytes and the greater number of the 

 testacea, I should immediately have saved him the trouble of 

 any further discussion on this topic. But on account of the 

 character which the controversy between us speedily assumed, I 

 thought it (|uite superfluous to make any explicit answer to his 

 remarks. Since, however, he perseveres, and at length asks me 

 a categorical ((uestion on the subject, I have only in reply to 

 congratulate him on having made it appear, aj'icr consulting 

 authorities, as he says, that snails crawl. I willingly con- 

 cede the point, and beg to assure F. E s that I never enter- 

 tained any douiit upon the subject. 



But F. E. has gained no advantage over me bv proving that 

 some of the testacfa are locomotive animals. In order to form 

 an exceptirtn to the coincidences I have traced between the 

 succession of epochas in Nature a;id in the Mosaic Cosmogony, 

 it would be neeessary to show that vestiges of these creeping 

 testaceous animals are to be found in those formations which I 

 liave referred to the first period of the organized creation. This, 

 I l)clieve, he will find a difficnlt undertaking, 'i'lic fact is, that 

 nlthough many bivalvular shells are contained in the rocks which 

 belong to this aera, there are very few univalves, and those which 



Vol. -18. No. 220. jlw'Wit IS'IG. M have 



