Retrospective Criticisni. 91 
inferior to Mr. Bakewell’s; but, when he tells us that the formation has 
been but imperfectly explored, and quotes, verbatim, the passage in Coney- 
beare and Phillips, I would, on my part, respectfully submit that he is not 
only not “ palpably wrong,” but actually right. Mr. H. is very likely a 
Kent or Sussex man, and, not being “ even a tyro in geology,” perchance 
thinks that the few square miles of Tilgate Forest compose the formation 
valled “ the Hastings’ sand.’ He, I say, is perhaps not aware of its extent 
in Beds, Cambridge, and other midland counties, and can it be there said to 
be perfectly explored, or even at all adequately examined: to this time, 
indeed, taking the formation generally, it may, I think, strictly be said, that 
the fossils “ are not numerous ;”” Mr. Mantell has, indeed, shown us what 
we may expect on further examination, but, alas! observers like him are not 
every where to be met with; if we had many such, content to pass their 
leisure hours in thoroughly investigating the country immediately around 
them, room would not be left for compilers of books on geology to be even 
suspected of errors of this nature, 
Of the few lines next in order in H.’s letter, being merely hints, I shall 
say nothing, and pass on at once to the consideration of the “ shameful in- 
correctness” of the plates. It must be confessed that H. is particularly 
unhappy in his first example ; he states that Scaphites aequalis is “ peculiar 
to the lower chalk ;” for such an assertion one would suppose he had some 
authority which he could state ; what it is, however, I am quite at a loss to 
discover, unless he happens to possess Coneybeare and Phillips’s book, and 
understands the passage concerning Scaphites (p. 73.) to refer to the strata 
in general, instead of merely the.two beds of the chalk ; as every one else, I 
believe, would. I thus give him credit for having some authority for his 
assertions however distorted ; though I can hardly suppose him to possess 
Coneybeare’s book, or he would have seen that Scaphites zequalis 1s there 
absolutely mentioned as a “as fossil. The next instance in H.’s letter is 
equally unfortunate, AZya intermedia is mentioned by Mr. Coneybeare as a 
fossil of the inferior oolite, and in this case I cannot even guess at H.’s 
authority for calling it “ of the London clay,” as if therein only to be found. 
Turrilites costata, moreover, is a green-sand fossil, and therefore rightly placed 
in a plate which I always considered as intended to contain, not merely the 
fossils of the oolite limestone beds, but to join on to the one succeeding 
it; that, as i contains fossils from the crag to the chalk, so this includes 
the beds from the chalk-marl to the cornbrash. The same will also apply 
to Hamites gibbésus, and Vermicularia umbonata. Of Protellaria ma- 
croptera [I cannot speak, not knowing the name, but I suppose Rostellaria 
macréptera is the shell alluded to; however, of it and Turritélla 
condidea nothing positive can be brought forward: to say the most, it is 
very doubtful whether Dr. Ure has committed any mistake in assigning them 
their present situations. With regard to H.’s concluding remarks, I must 
again confess myself unable to conceive the ill effects that mistakes like 
these, supposing them to be such, can have on the science ; they would, at 
most, create a little confusion to the reader, which might be cleared away by 
referring to the work on the subject next at hand; and I must say, I think 
it would have been more becoming in Mr. H. to have done so before he 
parted with his letter. In general, indeed, I think we should be careful how 
we magnify molehills into mountains, and, for a few inaccuracies and marks 
of inattention, throw discredit on a book which, like Dr. Ure’s, contains 
so many pages of sound induction and philosophic reasoning ; and although 
most people will be inclined to differ, more or less, from his theory, or the 
arguments adduced in its support, yet, as geologists still seem inclined to 
adhere to one of the three hypotheses mentioned by Mr. Coneybeare in his 
Introduction, a book written in support of one of them by such a man as 
Ure may not be without its use; perhaps, indeed, we might all be much 
benefited, and our ideas enlarged, if men qualified for such speculation were 
to illustrate the other two, in connection with a good practical account of 
