J. D. Dana—Address of T. Sterry Hunt. 101 
Mr. Hunt protests against expressions cited by him from 
Naumann and Delesse being “set aside because éraces of the 
doctrine of epigenic pseudomorphism still hold a place in the 
last edition of Naumann’s Mineralogy, or in the ‘Revue de 
Géologie,’ of which Delesse is one of the authors.” Traces / when 
4 systematic statement of facts on pseudomorphism essentially 
after the old views is the object of each! Stl 
Delesse and Naumann might well be excused for some vex- 
ation of spirit after such “ sophistries” personal to them, and, 
probably, if they were to speak out, they would show their 
vexation without the use of poetry. 
OBsection 4, That Prof: Hunt grossly misrepresented the views 
nearly every writer on pseudomorphism in saying that the 
doctrine of Gustaf Rose, Haidinger, Blum, Volger, Rammeisberg, 
Dana, Bischof, and many others, leads them to maintain the 
possibility of converting almost any silicate into any other; and 
adding, in the same paragraph, that “in this way we are led from 
gneiss or granite to limestone, from limestone to dolomite, and from 
dolomite to serpentine, or more directly from granite, granulie or 
te to serpentine at once, withoul passing through the inter- 
Mediate stages of limestone and dolomite.” ia 7. 
Prof. Hunt seems to think that he meets the objection in 
Saying (page 50) that— : : 
Hatpincer and others have held to the conversion of lime- 
stone to dolomite ; 
- Rosz, Buu and the writer, to that of dolomite and some 
ie aa Tocks to serpentine, or to talcose, steatitic or chlorite ~ 
ISt ; 
RAMMELSBERG : 
Bio, again, to that of limestone to granite or gneiss, when 
this author has nothing of the kind in his works, and the 
gen, ————I_f ag 
But this gathering of objections from the opinions of a 
Variety of individuals, and then sharsine: the whole, with the 
help of a few lines of poetry (see p 4) on 
col ectively, while it may be a smart thing to do, is not the 
course to give success to the truth, With scarcely an 
©Xception, all writers on the subject under consideration, Nau- 
mann and Delesse included, have a right to feel badly at being 
*° summarily knocked over in ten-pin style. 
€tc., to iolite [showing that they are altered iolite], and then observes that these 
minerals are to be marked as independent species only i so far as ' 7 
Nanna, 00st or phases in the Bocmneltion of iolite.” There is no mistaking 
