Prof. Hitchcock'' s Rejoinder to Dr. Deane. 391 



I now understand this gentleman to claim, not only the ori- 

 ginal discovery of these footmarks, which in a popular sense I 

 awarded to him, but their first scientific investigation ; that his 

 "three (first) letters, written without a ray of knowledge other 

 than was derived from philosophical inductions, contain the fun- 

 damental principles and doctrines applied to the science of these 

 organic remains ;" that in my Final Report on Massachusetts, I 

 was "compelled by controlling necessity, to adopt facts, opinions 

 and arguments, which were emphatically expressed to me ere 

 my scepticism had been dispelled ;" and that it was only an 

 " implicit confidence" in my readiness to render him " impartial 

 justice," that led him to yield to me the liberty to record the 

 history of the footmarks. If this is indeed a correct view of the 

 case, then I am far more culpable and dishonorable than Dr. 

 Deane represents me ; though his charges of injustice are very 

 severe. But let us look for a moment at the facts. 



Early in the spring of 1835, (not 1834, as Dr. Deane says is 

 stated in my Report, of which unfortunately I have no copy, 

 having returned the proof,) a cloven specimen of sandstone, con- 

 taining peculiar impressions, was brought to Greenfield, through 

 the agency of Mr. Wilson,* and laid by the roadside in the street. 

 Dr. Deane, whom I had known as a respectable young physi- 

 cian, with a predilection for scientific pursuits, sent me an ac- 

 count of them ; declaring his unhesitating belief that the im- 

 pressions were " the tracks of a turkey," stating at the same time 

 that he was " no geologist," and presuming that these appear- 

 ances, though new to him, were not so to me ; and expressing a 

 willingness to have them preserved for me if I desired it. What 

 now would be the conclusion of a geologist from such a letter : — 

 a geologist who had sometimes been led away by respectable 

 men long distances in vain, to see supposed tracks on stone ? 

 From the known scientific taste of such a man, he would, in- 

 deed, hope that the impressions were somethiiig more than dilu- 

 vial furrows, or veins of segregation ; but he would see at once 

 that Dr. Deane was unacquainted with the history of organic re- 



* How unfortunate have I been in my efforts to avoid intimating that Dr. Deane 

 derived his opinions from Mr. Wilson ! In consequence of a letter received from 

 him just before my Report went to press, in which he manifested much sensibility 

 on this point, I added those explanations in which he now sees only "a taunt to 

 an associate." But jealousy is argus-eyed. 



