Remarks on Professor Eaton's Communication. 1 47 



are grounded on observation, and equally acknowledged 

 by all geologists, and that it does not require any hypothesis 

 to establish it. For instance, wherever geologists have 

 had an opportunity of observing granite and other rocks, 

 they have always found granite to be the lowest, although 

 they sonmetimes alternate. Now who ever thought that it 

 implied a love of hypothesis, to infer fronn these fads 

 thai granite was the "inferior," and other aggregates the 

 "superior" rock, merely because geologists have not 

 uncovered every foot of granite in the globe, to see if 

 there were not some chink or crevice through which other 

 rocks passed beneath it ? 



Mr. Eaton objects to the work of these authors, because 

 fhey " propose that we should begin at the upper surface 

 of the earth, and proceed downwards, when we study its 

 structure." It is true this is the method they adopt as 

 the most convenient: but this is not a necessary adjunct 

 of their system ; for they might as well commence, for 

 aught we can see, with their inferior order, as the Werne- 

 rian with his primitive.. 



We were not aware, as this communication asserts, that 

 according to the VVernerian scheme, "it is sufficient that 

 we show the series of rocks at the surface in that order of 

 succession denominated primitive, transition, and secon- 

 dary " If Werner ever taught any thing, he taught that 

 his transition class lies above the primitive, his floetz class 

 above the transition, and his newest floetz class above the 

 floetz, throughout their zvhole extent. And this is neces- 

 sarily implied whenever any follower of Werner gives us 

 a map or description of any country according to this 

 classification. So we cannot perceive how it is, that the 

 Wernerian arrangement is any more limited to the surface, 

 than that of Mr. Conybeare. 



We objected to the Wernerian names, primitive, 

 transition, and floetz, or sf condary, as tending to impress 

 the mind of the student with ' false, or at least hypotheti- 

 cal views,' and exerting an undesirable influence upon 

 his researches. Mr. Eaton regards this objection as ' most 

 extraordinary,' because every science has names in it, 

 originally founded upon false or hypothetical views. We 

 do indeed regard this as a defect in every science that has 

 3uch names in it ; because the student has not only to 



