278 DISCUSSION. 
Reply—I described a stone as—(1) a ruby, (2) under a carat 
in weight ; (3) perfect in colour; (4) showing a feather on the 
templet. 
Mr. Smith has assumed, I submit unwarrantably, that this 
refers to—(1) a topaz, (2) weighing over a carat; (3) poor in 
colour (burnt topaz); (4) showing no feather on the templet. 
Mr. Smith—* It has a specific gravity of 3-51 and its hardness 
is 8, it” the cut stone—“ being readily scratched by a sapphire. 
The methods whereby gem stones are determined to-day are 
perhaps more accurate than those in use when Mr. Stephen’s 
specimens were named.” 
Reply—Mr. Stephen never professed to be a mineralogist. He 
did good service in locating gems. His work was often faulty, 
but he made no claim to be considered a scientific man. Never- 
theless he would not have left it on record, that a “ cut stone” 
was readily scratched by a sapphire! The tests—those mentioned 
by Mr. Smith—are not in advance of the methods that prevailed 
long before Mr. Stephens time. Mr. H. A. Miers in one of his 
lectures says that “incredible as it may seem, the estimation of 
hardness and specific gravity are the only attempts at anything 
like scientific measurements ever made in the ordinary course of 
business applied to stones.” He goes on to say :—‘‘ We can 
begin by dismissing the hardness as a character which it is really 
unnecessary to determine, except to identify diamond or to dis- 
tinguish a real stone from paste; here, I know, I shall earn @ 
rebuke from the orthodox mineralogist, who, in order to pursue 
the study of what should bea peaceful science, arms himself with 
a knife and proceeds to scratch everything which he comes across.” 
Yet these methods are those advanced by Mr. Smith in a critical 
notice. 
Mr. Smith—‘“ The question arises whether other comparatively 
large so-called rubies stated to have been found in this colony are 
of the same character.” 
