No. 6. 



Missouri Leviathan. 



175 



To the Editor of the Farmers" Cabinet. 

 Missouri Leviathan. 



We regret that the following communication did not 

 come to hand in time for our last number; it ought to 

 have accompanied the article, page 148, on the same 

 subject. The pages of the Cabinet are the property of 

 our correspondents, and are neitiier to be bought nor 

 sold; they it is who make them what they are, while 

 our province is to take care that every one has his 

 right. Truth will bear the strictest investigation, and 

 was never in fear for the result ; her advocates, there- 

 fore, need be under no apprehension on her account, 

 and it will always afford r,s real pleasure to assist in 

 the search after the truth, wherever it may lead. Will 

 our unknown correspondent accept our best thanks for 

 his tribute of praise ? It shall be our endeavour to de- 

 serve it. — Ed. 



Sir, — The readers of the Cabinet are under 

 heavy obligations for 3'our continued efforts to 

 amuse and instruct them on every proper sub- 

 ject; and there are few scientific ones with 

 which an ag^riculturist of taste and industry 

 may not, and should not, be familiar. They 

 are indebted not only for the great variety, 

 and, in general, judicious selection of reading 

 matter, but for the excellent portraits of ani- 

 mals and engravings of implements, which so 

 constantly adorn its pages. The effort to 

 convey to your subscribers a knowledge of 

 the Missouri Leviathan, so called, by means 

 of the drawing in your last number, vk'ill be 

 duly appreciated by the naturalist and geolo- 

 gist — pursuits, interesting and instructive to 

 all, and which, in the march of general know- 

 ledge, will, we may trust, soon be no hidden 

 mysteries to the accomplished cultivator of 

 the soil, as no class, certainly, has more at 

 etake in their daily development of important 

 principles. 



Few, acquainted with the conduct of the 

 Cabinet, I presume, would permit themselves 

 to doubt the " faithful delineation of the won- 

 derful work of the Almighty" referred to — 

 but there are other considerations connected 

 with this subject, for which you are in no way 

 responsible, that deserve some attention. To 

 be applicable to any useful purpose, it is im- 

 portant that our first impressions should, as 

 far as practicable, be correct, especially in 

 matters of science ; and in none more so than 

 that which is involved in the examination of 

 fossil remains, requiring, in many cases, much 

 of careful comparison and minute and patient 

 investigation. No one, however, who has 

 given any attention to comparative anatomy, 

 oan avoid being struck, not only with the 

 anomaly, but the violation of all anatomical 

 rules presented in the description which ac- 

 companies the drawing, much more in the 

 appearance of the object itself; and notwith- 

 standing the remarks of your correspondent, 

 H., in the same number, many of the culti- 

 vators of this branch of science will, I am 



ready to conclude, still continue to lean to 

 the opinions of the Editor of the Farmers' 

 Register, that though it may not be justly 

 termed a "counterfeit," it is "at least so far 

 factitious," as to render probable the attempt 

 to present, under another name, "a larger 

 size of the well-known mastodon, of which it 

 is in truth a specimen." 



The communication of H. would lead us 

 into the belief that the "only wood that hag 

 been added to the whole skeleton, are small 

 blocks inserted between the vertebrte of the 

 back, to take place of the cartilaginous sub- 

 stance which had been consumed by time, 

 which blocks seem by no means sufficiently 

 large for the purpose of exhibiting the animal 

 in his perfect size, but merely forming inter- 

 stices on which to attach the ribs;" and that 

 " in every other part the bones appear in their 

 natural state." From these opinions of//., I 

 was about to express my humble dissent, as 

 well as the reasons for such ; but having ob- 

 served a reference to the subject at the last 

 meeting of the Academy of Natural Science, 

 by Dr. Goddard, of your city, a gentleman 

 well known for his researches in comparative 

 anatomy, I prefer transcribing his observations 

 in part, as far more likely to efface any erro- 

 neous impressions that may be drawn from a 

 hurried view, or interested description of the 

 remains, than any thing that could be urged 

 by an anonymous writer, with less opportu- 

 nity, perhaps, of examination and observation 

 than that anatomist. The issue between 

 Mr. Koch, H., and Dr. Goddard, is thus made 

 up. [Here follows Dr. Goddard's Report — 

 which see at page 146 of our last number.] 



I have not seen the passage from the 

 " Western Journal of Medicine," referred to 

 in your extract from the '■'■Friend" page 133, 

 but the editor of the latter journal may con- 

 sole himself on the score of injury to the 

 discoverer in the publication of the remarks 

 of the former; as no doubt equally severe 

 justice will be meted out to the remains in 

 England, to which place it appears to be on 

 its way. The attempt to cast " ridicule on 

 the whole affair," was natural, upon the dis- 

 covery of the false representations essayed to 

 be palmed off on the public; and though it is 

 true that, so far from being a " sheer decep- 

 tion," the skeleton is really one of great in- 

 terest, yet it can hardly be regretted that the 

 errors to which I have referred have been de- 

 tected and exposed before it undergoes the 

 scrutiny of European anatomists — else they 

 might conclude that the shrewd Yankee was 

 easier imposed upon, in matters of science at 

 least, than common report affirmed, if they 

 had swallowed unscrupulously all that has 

 been said of the singularities of this animal. 



The great matter of complaint and error, 

 supposing it no worse, has been in the viola- 



