150 Remarks on Professor Eaton’s Communication. 
very much dependent on her writers, and are bound to 
ay to them much respect and deference. And why ? 
Not because this country does not furnish so good a field 
for observation; for it is decidedly a better one: nor 
engaged in the study of their rocks twice as many years as 
Americans, and in consequence of the more extensive pa- 
tronage bestowed uponthe former, and theless urgent demand 
for talent in other departments, more scientific men have 
been able to give rien exclusively to the subject ‘in 
urope than in this country. e consequence has been 
that more extensive geological cabinets have been formed, — 
than among us, and ti soo atch has been attained 
in the knowledge of rocks. Valuable as are many of our 
geological treatises and wath sili shall we find any that 
will compare with the transactions of the London Geologi- 
cal Society. with the great work of Cuvier on fossil ee 
with the work of Conybeare and Phillips which we are 
considering, or with the truly magnificent map of Renate 
ou e mike not these comparisons because we think — 
meanly of American geologists. nor because we wish to 
inculcate any servile deference to Europeans. From their 
frowns or their favour we have nothing to fear or hope. But 
in matters of science, we wish things to be stated justas they 
are, and we are not willing to be warped by national par- 
tialities, or envious rivalries. e wish to justify ourselves 
from the charge of paying an undue homage to Europeans 
We rejoice to believe that our country is rapidly advancing 
in geology, as well as in other departments of science ; an 
we with pleasure anticipate the day, as not far distant, hel 
she will take the lead in geognosy. Butif we attempt to 
elevate our geological character above that of Europeans, 
when facts will not warrant it, we only excite the pity or 
contempt of the world for our arrogance and vanity. , 
ut a particular yi ee of our neglect of our couptty s 
men has been pointed out. We recommended the ad 
tion of the terms diluvial and alluvial as defined by 
Conybeare, and did not e a somewhat similar: ice. 
