Dr. Deane on the Discovery of Fossil Footmarks. 389 



that another variety " might have been produced by that portion 

 of the Grallse denominated Cursores." And in his Northampton 

 letter he says that the Dinornis of New Zealand, which he con- 

 jectures is an existing bird, " was probably of a similar character 

 to the bird that made the footmarks on the sandstone." In con- 

 nection with my inability to comprehend the meaning of the ori- 

 ginal fossils, Mr. H. alludes to himself as one whose "profes- 

 sional business it was to examine such objects," and repudiates 

 the idea that my opinions could make an impression upon him, 

 although he had hitherto repeatedly acknowledged the correct- 

 ness of my views. 



I acknowledge that accidentally blundering upon a thing, irre- 

 spective of those mental relations, that appreciate causes from the 

 results of causes and effects, does not constitute a claim to original 

 discovery. But are we to infer that the history of these impres- 

 sions would still be a blank, had not the scientific pen of Mr. H. 

 recorded it? Was his agency an indispensable requisite in 

 promulgating a knowledge of their existence and character ? If 

 this be true, his exclusive claim is impregnable. If the applica- 

 tion of science to this subject, consists in arbitrary classification ; 

 in the adoption of terms of non-committal import in essential par- 

 ticulars; in applying to the acknowledged footmarks of birds, 

 terms which belong exclusively to reptiles ; in founding species 

 upon distorted and doubtful examples ; in throwing doubts around 

 self-evident truths, and in the adoption of erroneous conclusions, 

 and the assumption of theories, then the claim of original discov- 

 ery rests upon a broad basis. But, if by science is understood 

 the comprehension of an eternal truth, unbiassed by theory, 

 then is this claim less unquestionable. Mr. H. performs an act of 

 injustice to himself, if he entertains for a moment any belief that 

 had he not published the history of this discovery, I should not 

 have done so ; and I now question him, if notwithstanding his 

 science and my supposed incompetency, he was not under the 

 lively apprehension that I should precede him in this matter? 

 This is indeed true, and no fallacy of argument can overthrow 

 the simple fact, that if I had not found or discovered the foot- 

 prints, put it in either contingency, neither would Mr. H. nor 

 either of his numerous company of claimants, have found or 

 discovered them. 



Vol. xLvii, No. 2.— July-Sept. 1844. 50 



