Editorial Note. 103 
edition of my Mineralogy, but only through an assistant, Professor 
Barker, and was able barely to give the occasional advice required. 
The paper of Prof. Hinrichs, on its reception, was put unopened 
into Prof. Barker’s hands for perusal and a report to me of its con- 
tents. It was the only mode of editorial reading that I was capa- 
ble of giving it. In his report, which I regarded as furnishing me 
a good idea of the scope and character of the article, there was 
not the slightest allusion to the idea brought out in my paper, or 
any thing bearing that way. At my request, Prof. Barker, aware 
my views, went over it a second time, and added to his former 
report the further positive statement that he found no views similar 
to mine in the article. It was filled with other discussions, and 
n 
angry and peremptory note; it was ost immediately returned 
to the author after only a very partial perusal. We had already 
atoms, at page 365 of volume xlii, which, from the first reading, 
had seemed to me fanciful and unintelligible, and as acceptable in 
cates), and not with 3 of oxygen as i ; and the view 
was ard elaborated, and published in the July number of 
this Journal, without a suspicion that Pro hs had ever held, 
iaris: 
return of his article, our relations had been of the most friendly 
d. Knowing of no emer for the charge in the papers return- 
| i P 
of his Atom Mechanics (in German), sent to the College Library, 
(received there July 2d, some time after my paper was wholly 
printed , 1 at once referred to the memoir: and, on examina- 
wide range of hysics and chemistry, some degree of coincidence 
in one part with i 
His memoir me Be 
i any points in which, on further examination I should find he had 
