250 Messrs. Young and Bird’s Reply to Mr.Winch. [Ocr. 
of the Cleveland chain,” though it is one of the most southerly 
parts of that chain. He describes the Cleveland chainas “ suc- 
ceeded at the vale of the Esk by the oolite limestome ridge ; ” 
thus totally overlooking the most lofty and extensive chain of our 
alum-hills, intervening between the vale of the Esk and the 
oolite hills. This is not a mere inadvertence, or slip of the pen, 
for he repeats the error presently after by representing the oolite 
hills as “ a dower range of hills, rising to view about three miles 
south of Robin Hood’s Bay;” the very position of our highest 
range of hills, which he has passed over, and which forms the 
most prominent feature in the Eastern Moorlands, comprising 
Stoupe Brow Hill, Loosehone Moor, Burton Head, Cranimoor, 
&c. some of which rise about 1400 feet above the level of the 
sea. Of this vast chain, Mr. W. gives no account, passing 
immediately from the Cleveland chain, on the north side of the 
Esk, to the oolite hills ; which last he also characterises as round 
topped, though they are notoriously flat topped. After an omis- 
sion so egregious, it is scarcely necessary to notice other gross 
mistakes in Mr. W.’s account of the strata; such as his con- 
founding the blue limestone of the vale of Pickering with that of 
Thirkleby ; his making our alum shale to pass from Arncliff 
south to Cowsby (mis-printed Cosley), and thence to Thirkleby ; 
whereas it is well known that it reaches but a mile or two beyond 
Osmotherley ; and his making it ‘‘ terminate on the coast below 
Scalby ” (mis-printed Scalesby), though it is seven or eight miles 
short of the Scalby shore. Mr. W.’s list of organic remains is 
meagre in the extreme, but not more so than we might expect, 
knowing from his letters, that so late as April, 1815, he had only 
seen some specimens of the Whitby petrifactions, without know- 
ing to what portions of the strata they belonged; and did not 
then know whether the oolite (which swarms with shells) contained 
any organic remains or not. Part of his list seems to have been 
copied from some Scarborough document without altering even 
the local phrases ; for some petrifactions are said to occur “ on 
the sands,” while we are not told what sands are meant, nor 
whether they occur there in the strata, or are washed out of the 
alluvial cliffs. 
We shall only add (for we have, perhaps, said more than enough), 
that we are not the only authors who have complained of Mr 
W.’s inaccuracies. Mr. W. Forster, in the work above quoted, 
Pref. p. 9, states that Mr. Winch, in describing the lead measures, 
has “ made many mistakes, for want of a correct local know- 
ledge of the country.” 
It is painful for us thus to expose the faults of a brother geo- 
logist, but Mr. W. by publicly accusing us, has compelled us ta 
perform this unpleasant task in our own vindication. 
We are, Sir, your most obedient servants, 
GEORGE YOUNG. 
Joun Birp. 
