Ti ene ai ase ae sri CS ea 
Pe Aso mee 
ce Ree z 
Correction. 303 
The spice Review.—Several of the ur numbers of 
this ve sae ve been received from Mr. ure. 
bie Fo ee Geology.—A copy of this srork has 
basins presented by the author. 
3. Correction communicated by A. B. Quinby. 
Pror, Situ an, 
Sir, 
Since my solution of the crank problem was pub- 
lished in your Journal, it has been stated to me by several in- 
dividuals, that “the London Journal of Arts and Sciences 
contains a solution of this problem, in which the writer finds the 
same restilt as that which | have established in y demonstra 
tion.” As this statement has recently been much reiterated, 
and as I wish not to rest under the charge of I aving copied 
the demonstration of another writer, I beg the liberty to state, 
publicly, in your Journal, that the solution PeBilisbed in the 
London Journal is not the same as that which [I have given 
inj; your Journal, The solution contained in the por 
Journal, (Vol. 3. p. 252.) besides being different from mine, 
is erroneous ; i does not embrace the principles of the 
crank problem. The author paces precivels the same error 
as was committed by Mr. Ward in your Journal; by as- 
suming that * the effects produced _ atibe several points of di- 
vision of the quadrant, are as the perpendiculars respectively 
from those points to the Jine of force.” is error is shown 
in my demonstration at page 318, line 2; and page 321, line 
8, Vol. VII. 
‘ A. B. QUINBY, 
New-York, Aug. 24, 1825. 
N. B. There is a second paper in the faded Journal on 
the crank ; but it is less scientific than the first, and embraces 
= same error. - 
AoB, Q. 
4. Correction ‘ihaaoetill: by Gi W.. Carpenter —In the 
communication on Cinchona Bark, p. 365, Vol. IX, the fol- 
lowing passage, i. e. “ Experiments which I made upon the 
Carthagena bark, of rather better quality than the market 
generally produces, yielded about one twelfth less quinine 
