Remarks on Professor McCoy's Commentanj. 209 



Art. XIII. — Remarks on Prof essor McCoy' s Commentary. By 

 Rev. W. B. Clarke, M.A., F.gIs., &c., &c. 



[Kead before the Royal Society of Victoria, December lOth^ 18G0.] 



I WAS not aware, till I perused Professor McCoy^s " Commen- 

 tary" on my letter, tliat Iliad offered any grounds of offence 

 in it ; and I deem it only right to express my sincere regret 

 that, if so, I should have unknowingly made his Excellency 

 the President the medium of anything so unbecoming my own 

 intention. I had, however, stated that I did not ^^wish to 

 speak disrespectfully of Professor jMcCoy's judg-ment and 

 learning," and if he has not followed my example, it is my 

 misfortune, and not my fault. 



The preceding letter was too hastily penned to bear the 

 construction of a deliberate memoir ; and though I certainly 

 sanctioned its being made use of, I did not suppose that it 

 would have attracted the weight of Mr. McCoy^s unkindest 

 criticism. 



In a little work*, recently published, I have given a concise 

 account of the carboniferous formation of New South Wales, 

 and also a brief statement of the controversy respecting it. 

 I have, therein, given full credit to the fact alleged that the 

 plant lately found in Victoria is a Tseniopteris. But I must 

 observe that, except in His Excellency's letter, to which the 

 above was a reply, I have never heard a syllable, either from 

 jNIr. IMcCoy nor any one else, about the plant. There could, 

 therefore, be no denial of j\Ir. McCoy's assertions, for I have 

 never seen anything that he has said or written on the subject, 

 save the above " Commentary." 



My remarks, therefore, were those of one Avho, having his 

 OM'n views upon a question, naturally required evidence 

 before he submitted that question to a decision which opposed 

 those views. Hence, I entered into a defence of my views, 

 and gave a definition of the genus by way of inquiry, which 

 Avas the only course open to me at this distance. 



In the third paragraph of the " Commentary," Mr. McCoy 

 attempts to show that ray reference to six should have been 

 twenty-three species. But if he will read my letter again, he 



Researches i» the Southern Gold-fields oi New South Wake, chai-ter xiv. 



P 



