Mr. Couthouy’s Reply to Mr. Dana. 379 
temperature as connected with the growth of corals, taken as a 
whole, or merely for the application of those views to the anom- 
alies presented by the Gallapagos and Bermudas. ‘To avoid any 
possibility of evasion however, I shall consider his charge as em- 
bracing both these points, since in another place he certainly af- 
firms the former of them, as will be shown before I conclude. 
The broad meaning of the charge is, that I am guilty of rHerr, 
literary larceny ; of a treacherous and most dishonorable aBusE 
OF CONFIDENCE, in having appropriated the ideas developed by 
- Mr. Dana in his MSS. “confidingly laid open for my perusal.” 
The imputations it contains are so gross, that if substantiated, 
they would richly warrant my ignominious expulsion, not only 
from the Association before which they were made, but from 
every other scientific body of which I have the honor to bea 
member. It stands Mr. Dana in need to be very sure that he 
can make good his assertion, since if he fails to do so, he must 
appear before the public in no enviable position, as guilty of hav- 
ing cast a foul blot upon the escutcheon of another on insufficient 
grounds. It must be borne in mind, that in the distribution of 
the various departments of natural history among the naturalists 
attached to the expedition, the corals were specially assigned to 
me. ‘Their habits, growth, distribution and all else connected. 
with their history, were consequently the objects of my particu- 
lar attention. ‘Traversing the same ground with Mr. Dana, pos- 
sessed of equal facilities for observing the phenomena present- 
ed by corals, with the same facts presented to my notice, (and I 
believe all my associates, not excepting Mr. D. himself, will do 
me the justice to acknowledge that I neglected no occasion for 
investigating either, ) it must I think be admitted that something 
more than Mr. D.’s unsupported assertion is requisite, to prove 
that I could only arrive at similar conclusions with himself, by 
meanly purloining his MS. statements. Until it could be made 
manifest that Mr. D. enjoyed an exclusive monopoly of the ability 
to deduce the views under discussion, from a study of phenome- 
na simultaneously observed by both; I might content myself 
with claiming that my simple denial should be taken as an equiv- 
alent for his bare assertion, and casting (as is my undoubted 
right) the enws probandi upon his shoulders, challenge him to 
produce the. proof of his charge. Jt will not suffice for him to 
show that the views referred to, were contained in his MSS., and 
