1847.] Correction of Col. Wailes's Communicalion. 291 



author and his subject; and so also in the account of the transac- 

 tions published in the American Quarterly Journal of Agriculture 

 and Science. The author felt deeply wounded, feeling that he 

 was treated with unfairness and injustice. I was unfortunately 

 detained from being present at that meeting by business, but I 

 read the discussions with great interest, as published in the news- 

 papers, but was sorry to find that the maiden effort from that 

 quarter should have been made a subject of ridicule, and so pub- 

 lished to the world. I am personally acquainted with most of the 

 gentlemen who have contributed from that quarter, except per- 

 haps Dr. Dickerson, whom I met for the first time at the meeting 

 in New York. Col. Wailes 1 have known intimately these ten 

 years. He is an estimable man, and a correct observer of facts, 

 on whose accuracy and judgment in any department he has inves- 

 tigated, I would rely on. In the account above referred to, 1845, 

 the paper by Dr. Dickenson is commended, while that from CoL 

 Wailes is treated very differently, to say the least. But to return 

 to the subject of the two papers of 1845; after introducing the 

 paper of Col. Wailes, you seem to blend or confusedly mix up the 

 statements of Wailes and Dickerson, attributing to the former that 

 which he denies or doubts, while the same things are claimed and 

 contended for by the latter. See American Quarterly Journal of 

 Agriculture and Science, vol. ii., pages 168-9. "Above all other 

 remarkable facts, there has been found actually, a piece of the 

 hurnan skull, with the nondescript blind animal, before described," 

 &c., &c. Now this is the language and opinion of Dr. D., yet in 

 the account above referred to, it seems to come from Col. Wailes, 

 who disclaims it and scouts at the very thought; I will give you 

 his own words as expressed to me in a letter of October 3d, 1846. 

 " You are aware that a paper was expected from me, and you 

 will noiv see why I declined it. The paper to which you allude 

 in your last as coming from me, extracts from which were read at 

 the geological meeting in New Haven, was not designed for that 

 purpose, but was on the contrary a report hastily drawn up to be 

 read before an agricultural association, composed of plain farmers, 

 men of very different attainments and views from those composing 

 this meeting. The paper was placed in the hands of Prof Silli- 

 man, then in our neighborhood, and chiefly for the purpose of in- 

 dicating some of the localities of fossils in this state, and which 

 paper he could examine when more at leisure, but he was per- 

 mitted to use it at his discretion; that he was judicious I have no 

 doubt. But let me call your attention to the notice given of that 

 paper by a member of the association, in the American Quarterly 

 Journal of Agriculture and Science, vol. ii., p. 168-9. W^as there 

 ever a more ridiculous perversion? The facts of a celebrated 

 water/ally and the nonsensical statement of a " piece of a human 



