EM o Proceedings. 
easily recognizable beds to be found ; and thus, even assuming that the clear 
and undeniable data, which the Canterbury plains present as to their origin, 
were not in existence, the character of the silt deposits on the slopes of Banks 
Peninsula, and the absence of recent marine beds, would at once compel us to 
reject Captain Hutton's new theory as incorrect in all its issues. Captain 
Hutton's attempts to prove the correctness of his own views by selecting a few 
unconnected passages from my own reports, which show, as I believe clearly, 
the subaerial formation of the Canterbury plains, are rather ingenious; but 
where he has done so he has either failed to follow the drift of my reasonings, 
or he totally misunderstood the explanations 1 gave of the observed facts. 
And with these few remarks I wish to leave the subject, but not without 
expressing a wish that those who intend to learn something more of the 
matter should examine for themselves the points at issue, as accurate observa- 
tions can be made, as it were, close to our own doors. Moreover, it is not my 
intention to refute in detail any theories which are unsupported by facts, as I 
should have to repeat what I have written before on the subject ; and, in 
future, I shall only reply with the words, *go and see," used by Desmarest, 
one of the fathers of geology, when, towards the end of last century, the 
Neptunists wanted to draw him into an argument about the nature of basalt. 
I have hitherto refrained from publishing any of my notes on the researches 
made during a number of years upon the accumulated treasures obtained in 
the turbary deposits of Glenmark, except a list of measurements of leg bones 
of different species, in the first volume of our “Transactions” and the 
description of the bones of the remarkable genus Harpagornis, in Vol. IV., 
always expecting that Professor Owen, whose truly classical labours have laid 
the foundations of the edifice of which present and future researches will only 
form additions, would himself review the whole subject at length. Finding, 
however, that instead of doing so, that illustrious comparative anatomist is 
inclined to unite, as it were, all the principal species with a struthious 
character into one genus under the general term of Dinornis, dropping 
altogether the name Palapteryx, I feel that I should not do my duty if I were 
to hold back the following notes any longer. 
If it were our good fortune that Professor Owen vd have access to the 
rich material which is exhibited in the Canterbury Museum, I am sure he 
- "would never have united under one genus a number of species which show 
such a remarkable diversity of character; but, as his description of single bones 
of some species, or at most of portions only of others, were given during а 
considerable space of time, ranging over more than thirty years, I can easily 
understand that Professor Owen will find every day, as the material increases, 
greater difficulty in making himself acquainted with all the details, unless he 
could have such a complete series as we possess in the Canterbury Museum to 
