Metrospective Criticism, ^1 



inferior to Mr. Bakewell's ; but, when he tells us that the formation has 

 been but imperfectly explored, and quotes, verbatim, the passage in Conev^ 

 beare and Phillips, I would, on my part, respectfully submit that he is not 

 only not " palpably wrong," but actually right. Mr. H. is very likely a 

 Kent or Sussex man, and, not being " even a tyro in geology," perchance 

 thinks that the few square miles of Tilgate Forest compose the formation 

 called " the Hastings' sand." He, I say, is perhaps not aware of its extent 

 in Beds, Cambridge, and other midland counties, and can it be there said to 

 be perfectly explored, or even at all adequately examined : to this time, 

 indeed, taking the formation generally, it may, I think, strictly be said, that 

 the fossils " are not numerous ; " Mr. Mantell has, indeed, shown us what 

 we may expect on further examination, but, alas ! observers like him are not 

 every where to be met with ; if we had many such, content to pass their 

 leisure hours in thoroughly investigating the country immediately around 

 them, room would not be left for compilers of books on geology to be even 

 suspected of errors of this nature. 



Of the few lines next in order in H.'s letter, being merely hints, I shall 

 say nothing, and pass on at once to the consideration of the " shameful in- 

 correctness " of the plates. It must be confessed that H. is particularly 

 unhappy in his first example ; he states that Scaphites aequalis is *' peculiar 

 to the lower chalk ; " for such an assertion one would suppose he had some 

 authority which he could state ; what it is, however, I am quite at a loss to 

 discover, unless he happens to possess Coneybeare and Phillips's book, and 

 understands the passage concerning Scaphites (p. 73.) to refer to the strata 

 in general, instead of merely the, two beds of the chalk ; as every one else, I 

 believe, would. I thus give him credit for having some authority for his 

 assertions however distorted ; though I can hardly suppose him to possess 

 Coneybeare's book, or he would have seen that Scaphites aequalis is there 

 absolutely mentioned as a lias fossil. The next instance in H.'s letter is 

 equally unfortunate, Mya intermedia is mentioned by Mr. Coneybeare as a 

 fossil of the inferior oolite, and in this case I cannot even guess at H.'s 

 authority for calling it " of the London clay^'' as if therein only to be found. 

 Turrilites costata, moreover, is a green-sand fossil, and therefore rightly placed 

 in a plate which I always considered as intended to contain, not merely the 

 fossils of the oolite limestone beds, but to join on to the one succeeding 

 it J that, as it contains fossils from the crag to the chalk, so this includes 

 the beds from the chalk-marl to the cornbrash. The same will also apply 

 to Hamites gibbosus, and Vermicularia umbonata. Of Protellaria ma- 

 croptera I cannot speak, not knowing the name, but I suppose Rostellaria 

 macroptera is the shell alluded to ; however, of it and Turritella 

 conoidea nothing positive can be brought forward : to say the most, it is 

 very doubtful whether Dr. Ure has committed any mistake in assigning them 

 their present situations. With regard to H.'s concluding remarks, I must 

 again confess myself unable to conceive the ill effects that mistakes like 

 these, supposing them to be such, can have on the science ; they would, at 

 most, create a little confusion to the reader, which might be cleared away by 

 referring to the work on the subject next at hand ; and I must say, 1 think 

 it would have been more becoming in Mr. H. to have done so before he 

 parted with his letter. In general, indeed, I think we should be careful how 

 we magnify molehills into mountains, and, for a few inaccuracies and marks 

 of inattention, throw discredit on a book which, like Dr. Ure's, contains 

 so many pages of sound induction and philosophic reasoning ; and although 

 most people will be inclined to differ, more or less, from his theory, or the 

 arguments adduced in its support, yet, as geologists still seem inclined to 

 adhere to one of the three hypotheses mentioned by Mr. Coneybeare in his 

 Introduction, a book written in support of one of them by such a man as 

 Ure may not be without its use ; perhaps, indeed, we might all be much 

 benefited, and our ideas enlarged, if men qualified for such speculation were 

 to illustrate the other two, in connection with a good practical account of 



