400 D7\ Deane^s Surrejoinder to Prof. Hitchcock. 



5. The assertion that Mr. H. was apprehensive I should anti- 

 cipate him in reveahng the discovery, is supported by fact. The 

 denial of this statement renders it imperative upon me to state 

 further, that without my knowledge or concurrence, Mr. H. soli- 

 cited the delay of my annunciation, on the ground that he could 

 perform this service in a more satisfactory manner than I could 

 do. This will doubtless be considered a severe charge, but I 

 have a right to sustain my cause with facts when urged by ne- 

 cessity. Mr. H. complains of the needless severity of my arti- 

 cle, or of what he terms my criminations ; but they have been 

 alleged openly, and with open right of defence, and under a 

 full conviction of the responsibility attached to them. But a 

 covert interference with my personal concerns, and the attempt 

 to frustrate the record of my discoveries, has awakened in me 

 above all things else, the consciousness that injustice had been 

 done me ; for what advantage would be a hundred discoveries 

 in science, if by influence and persuasion the channel of com- 

 munication should be stopped ? 



6. The accusation of appropriating the honor of scientific in- 

 vestigation which belongs to Mr. H. demands a few words. I 

 beg Mr. H. to examine candidly whether I have really made 

 such an assumption. It cannot be true that I have ever attempt- 

 ed to wrest from him the great distinction he has acquired in 

 developing the history of footmarks. No man would be more 

 sensible of the presumption of such an act than myself. I only 

 maintain that the first link in the chain of discovery was con- 

 structed by me, and that although Mr. H. has prosecuted the 

 subject with brilliant success, still the primary step, most impor- 

 tant of all, and absolutely indispensable to him, was first taken 

 by me. His attention was aroused by my repeated letters, and I 

 cannot reverse the opinion that his scepticism was overcome by 

 my exertions. 



7. I cannot perceive the necessity of ringing the changes upon 

 my admission of being no geologist. The sincerity with which 

 it was made should have saved me from the severity of criticism. 

 I candidly admit that I am no geologist now. I make not now, 

 nor have ever made any pretensions to a knowledge of this noble 

 science, and I might challenge the proof of having ever made 

 the slightest pretensions to the honor of the discovery in question. 

 In my letter to Dr. Mantell I did not claim it. My language 



