26 - Sketch of a General Theory of the [Juy, 
Werner to have subsided, and to have formed separate basins or 
seas. ‘The subsequent deposits must have varied according to local 
circumstances. Therefore some variety in the succession of floetz 
rocks ‘rather confirms than invalidates the Wernerian theory of the 
earth. I have the honour to be, Sir, 
With great respect, 
Your very obedient humble servant, 
College Green, Bristol, LC. Pr 
May 14,1815. PRICHARD. 
Arric.Le VI. 
Sketch of a General Theory of the Intellectual Functions of Man 
and Animals, given in reply to Drs. Cross and Leach. By 
Alexander Walker.* 
(To Dr. Thomson.) 
SIR, 
Ix the 26th number of your Annals of Philosophy, was announced 
a discovery of the use of the cerebellum and spinal marrow by Dr. - 
Cross;—in the 27th number, Dr. Leach stated ‘* that the same 
facts, or facts that lead to similar conclusions, were published in 
Lettres de Hufeland a Portal, 1807, and Anatomie du Systéme 
Nerveux, &c. par Gall et Spurzheim;—in the 28th number, I, 
conceiving that Dr. Leach meant to ascribe these discoveries to Gall 
and Spurzheim, denied that they were contained in the work re- 
ferred to; +—and in the 29th number, Dr. Leach says, “ Permit 
me, Sir, to assure you that the letter from Hufeland to Portal con- 
tains precisely the same opinion respecting the use of the cerebellum 
as that given by Mr. Alexander Walker and Dr. Cross; but he there 
adds, that he had quoted Gall and Spurzheim’s work only as stating 
these opinions to be erroneous; and, while he asserts that my 
anatomical and physiological statements are ‘* inaccurate, suppo- 
sitious, and at variance with nature,” he gives the results of his 
own “recent examinations” t{—the conclusions which he draws 
after having ‘‘ carefully examined the structure of the spinal mass 
of nerves.” § 
* Though this communication is rather too long for the Annals of Philosophy, we 
have given it a place, that every one of the Gentlemen concerned in this dispute 
may be upon a footing ; but as the object of the Annals of Philasophy is not con- 
troversy, the Editor trusts that they will see the propriety of letting this subject 
rest where it is.—T. ? 
+ Certainly when a Gentleman has said ‘ that facts which lead to similar con- , 
clusions were published” in a particular work, meaning thereby to give them 
priority over another statement, it is most natural to suppose that such was the 
eriginal source of these facts; and, at all events, the conclusion is unavoidable 
that they are there considered as facts—the term which Dr, Leach employs. 
t Annals of Philosophy, vol. v. p. 346, 
4 Ibid. p, 345, 
