350 Mr. Blake's Reply to Mr. Quinby. 



count very naturally for their appearance in a region, to which 

 they are apparently strangers. The speculative part of geol- 

 ogy is, at present, but a series of hypotheses, and we may ad- 

 mit temporarily the most probable. In every case we should 

 admit that which explains the phenomena of nature in the 

 simplest manner. 



Art. XI. — Reply to Mr. A. B. Quinby's Question, at page 

 74, of this volume ; by E. W. Blake. 



TO THE EDITOR. 



Sir — A little more attention on the part of Mr. Quinby, to 

 the communication of mine, which has drawn forth his reply 

 to me in your last number, will satisfy him that, as I neither 

 stated nor pretended to state, either his ideas or his lan- 

 guage, on the points referred to, so I cannot have " misrep- 

 resented'''' him on those points. By the same means, he will 

 also perceive, that I have no where charged him with the 

 error of having made a direct comparison between two un- 

 like quantities : and when he fully comprehends the nature 

 of the distinctions on which my argument was founded, he will 

 see most clearly, that I have not fallen into that error myself.* 

 That Mr. Quinby has not apprehended the nature of those 

 distinctions, is evident from the irrelevant question concern- 

 ing them, with which he has concluded his remarks. 



Being engaged in active business, I have neither time nor 

 inclination to write for the sake of disputation, and shall, 

 therefore, pass over Mr. Quinby's strictures, without further 

 comment ; not doubting that the above hints will enable him 

 to set himself right. But to the question just referred to, I 

 shall reply at length, embracing the opportunity which it 

 gives me, to illustrate the distinctions on which my argument, 

 relative to the crank, and other machinery was founded. 

 These distinctions I would recommend to the particular at- 

 tention of Mr. Quinby, and any other of your readers who 

 are engaged in the pursuit of mechanical science, as con- 



* Mr. Quinby's measure of tendency to rotation is correct, for the purpose of 

 comparing tendencies at different distances from the centre of motion ; but it 

 is no measure of a determinate tendency, at an assumed distance. 



