AMERICAN GEOLOGY FOSSTL FOOTPRINTS. 627 



nites deweyi, and it was suggested that they were comparable with the 

 Cheiotheritmi, an amphibian found in the European Keuper beds 

 (Triassic). This discovery, naturally, raised again the question as to 

 the possible quadrupedal nature of the others described, but, with 

 characteristic conservatism, he still refrained from committing him- 

 self, simply noting that it would be "contrary to the cautious spirit 

 of science" to decide on the evidence then at hand as to their exact 

 nature, and he therefore adhered to the course adopted in his previous 

 report, and classified all under the names as onvithoidichnites and 

 sauroidichnites, as before. 



It is scarcely necessary to remark that the discovery of these tracks 

 excited a very lively interest both at home and abroad, and references 

 and suggestions regarding them multiplied in the geological literature 

 of the day. Thus, in the American Journal of Science, XLV, 1843, 

 under the title of Ornithichnites of the Connecticut River Sandstones 

 and the Dinornis of New Zealand, we find given the opinions of 

 Deane, Hitchcock, Mantell, and Richard Owen regarding their nature. 

 Deane, in a letter to Doctor Mantell, of London, had written: 



These beautiful fossils, indicating a high grade of animal existence in a period of 

 the earth so immensely remote, may well be regarded among the wonders of paleon- 

 tological science. * * * That the footsteps of the Connecticut River are, how- 

 ever, the authentic traces of extinct birds is confirmed by the undeviating compari- 

 sons they bear to living nature. 



He wrote further of referring these footprints, as discovered by 

 himself, to Professors Silliman and Hitchcock, both of whom admitted 

 the plausibility of his statements, } r et remained incredulous as to the 

 inferences drawn until accurate models were submitted to them, when 

 Professor Hitchcock had pronounced his unqualified conviction that 

 the footprints were those of birds. Doctor Mantell in his reply to 

 Doctor Deane seems to have himself accepted the opinion of their 

 bird-like nature, and stated further that at first both Professors Owen 

 and Murchison were in doubt as to whether they were made by birds 

 or reptiles. Mr. Lyell, however, stated his conviction that they were 

 genuine orn itfyichnites. Later, Professor Murchison, after considering 

 the enormous size of the tracks which must have been made by the 

 New Zealand moas, " confessed that the gigantic bones from New 

 Zealand, evincing as they did most unequivocal^ the existence even 

 in our own times of birds as large as any required by the American 

 footmarks, had removed his skepticism, and that he had no hesitation 

 in declaring his belief that the ornithichnites had been produced by 

 the imprints of the feet of birds which had walked over the rocks 

 when in a soft and impressible state." "An opinion," adds Mantell, 

 "in which I entirely concur." 



Dr. Richard Owen, too, in a letter to Professor Silliman, under date 

 of March 16, 1813, after calling attention to the need of caution in 



