Prof. Hitchcock on Ichnolithology , or Fossil Footmarks. 295 



to look at the specimens in order to be satisfied that such was the 

 origin of the tracks in question. Nay, many of these specimens 

 were so striking, that scarcely any observer needed to be told that 

 they were bird tracks. Four out of five, I presume, would draw 

 this conclusion at once. Indeed I have sometimes enquired of boys 

 from ten to twelve years of age, when showing them specimens 

 for the first time, what they thought of them ; and the usual re- 

 ply has been, "they are bird tracks, made when the rock was 

 soft." Accordingly, I have found that whenever these impres- 

 sions have been found in the valley of the Connecticut, and at 

 whatever period, this has been the almost invariable conclusion. 

 In my first account of this subject in the Journal of Science, I 

 stated that " this is the conclusion to which the most common 

 observer comes at once, upon inspecting the specimens. But the 

 geologist should be the last of all men to trust to first impressions" 

 — and it was not till after long and careful investigation, that I felt 

 prepared to maintain this opinon before the scientific public. 



Among the means by which so general an acquiescence has at 

 last been obtained in this interesting conclusion, was the appoint- 

 ment, by this Association, of a large and able committee to visit 

 the localities. Their candid report was republished in Europe, 

 and undoubtedly carried great weight with it. Another means 

 was the visit of several distinguished foreign geologists to the lo- 

 calities, such as Dr. Daubeny and Mr. Lyell ; who, on their re- 

 turn, expressed their adhesion to the views which I had advocated. 

 But the recent discovery of the Dinornis of New Zealand, has 

 probably done more than any thing else, to remove the objections 

 of such men as Richard Owen, Dr. Manteil and Mr. Murchison ; 

 men eminently qualified to judge of the merits of such subjects. 



The deep interest manifested of late in these footmarks on both 

 sides of the Atlantic, has led to a more minute inquiry as to their 

 original discovery, than was made during the period when more 

 obloquy than honor was connected with the subject. Several 

 individuals have complained to me that I have not, in my 

 printed accounts of the footmarks, mentioned their names, as 

 having discovered them earlier than any whom I have men- 

 tioned. In the newspapers of this country, also in several ar- 

 ticles of the American Journal of Science,* in the London, Ed- 



* Vol. xmi, p. 241, and Vol. xlv, pp. 179 and 185. 



