To Readers and Correspondents, 



141 



^ms subject to, and how much restraint he had put hiraself under, by not noticing them 

 before. 



How he could be so much provoked, as to indulge in those epithets, we now come io 

 relate. 



In the twelfth of those geological lectures before alluded to, when on the subject of 

 comparative anatomy, the lecturer, having his table crowded with fossils, had to explain 

 each of them, in a rapid manner, in turns. There were two mutilated jaw bones of ihe 

 Mastodon, which he had drawn firom the collection of the American Philosophical Society, 

 where they had been hitherto unnoticed. These, as they differed from any other jaw 

 bones of the mastodon, having an alveolar process, or socket, towards the end of each, he 

 thought it proper to make a few slight remarks upon ; inasmuch as the description of a 

 young scull of the genus mastodon, under similar circumstances, had been published in 

 the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, and had been, by a deceased 

 naturalist, raised to the rank of a new genus, under the following title : " Description of a 

 New Genus and New Species of Extinct Mammiferous Quadruped. By John D. Godvian, 

 M. D" It IS due to truth to say, that when this conformation was proposed, as a new spe- 

 cies of a new genus, it was rejected by every naturalist of the city of New-York \ and long 

 before the lecturer had declared his opinion on the subject in public. Dr. flarlan of the 

 city of Philadelphia, who is without a rival there in the knowledge of comparative anato- 

 my and zoology, had publicly declared, that the characters relied on for raisuig the animal 

 to a new genus were altogether insufficient; the reasons for which were subsequently 

 published inFerrusac's Bulletin des Sciences Universelles, for 1830. These opinions, with- 

 out mentioning any names, the lecturer stated he concurred in, and believed the genus 

 would have to be abandoned. Having those jaw bones before him, he could not, without 

 doing injustice to his class, and to the cause of natural science, pass over one of those erro- 

 neous conclusions, to which all naturalists are subject, and for the treatment of which as 

 erroneous, he had such able support. But he did it w-ith the consideration due to the me- 

 mory of a meritorious naturalist, whose name never escaped him upon the occasion. He 

 had no motive for throwing a shade over his memory, for he never had had any intercourse 

 with the late Dr. Godman, never came into any sort of collision with him, and believes 

 he was equally unknown to that gentleman. 



This, the lecturer pledges himself was his conduct upon that occasion, and without ap- 

 pealing to, perhaps, the uncertain recollections of his class, he esteems himself fortunate 

 in being able fo show, from the best proof the nature of the case will admit, that it was so. 

 Two or three days after the delivery of that lecture, Mr. Chandler, the intelligent editor 

 of the United States Gazette, published, as it had been his custom to do during the course, 

 a full report of it. It cannot be imputed to that gentleman, that he had any motive to misre- 

 present what fell from the lecturer upon that occasion \ his talent and accuracy are un- 

 doubted. On turning, then, to the report of Mr. Chandler, in the files of the United States 

 Gazette, we find the following passage, which comprehends all that was said on the sub- 

 ject:— 



" He took occasion here to state his opinion, and adduced facts to prove its validity, 

 that the new genus Tetracaulodon Mastodontoides, must be abandoned ; as the only dis- 

 tinctive character upon which it rested, was the presence of milk tusks in the lower jaw, 

 which were common to various species of the Mastodon, before the individuals had 

 reached their full growth." This account, which substantially agrees with the private 

 notes of the Lecturer, has been placed beyond all doubt, by an admission made in an 

 anonymous communication which appeared in the National Gazette on the 24th May, 

 1831, a week after the pubh cation of the Report of the Lecture in the United States 

 Gazette. And as this anonymous communication has a great deal to do with this con- 

 troversy, we shall insert it. 



A few days after the delivery of this lecture on the 13th May, Dr. Isaac Hays, at one 

 of the stated' meetings of the American Philosophical Society, addressed the meeting on 

 the structure of the jaws, and dentition of the mastodon, using upon this occasion, the 

 two jaws which the lecturer on geology had previously exhibited. After various rea- 

 sonings, he made the following declaration: "That perhaps if that were the occasion 

 for him to express his opinion, he would say that this character (the teeth in the rostrated 

 extremity of the lower jaws) was insufficient to raise the animal to the head of a new 

 Geniis." Now Dr. Isaac Hays came to this conclusion, — which was the identical one ex- 

 pressed by the lecturer — after inspecting the jaws which the lecturer had previorisly pre- 

 sented to his class. It is true, Dr. Isaac Hays, added, that notwithstanding this, he was 

 disposed to believe it was an animal distinct from any species of mastodon previously de- 

 scribed, and was entitled to be considered a new species. At this meeting the lecturer 

 on geology was present, and was silent : he perceived that Dr. Isaac Hays had embraced 

 his opinion, as far as he had expressed it concerning the genus, and as to the supposition 

 that it might be a new species, that was a totally different question, which could be here- 

 after decided only by the examination of many similar osteological remains, if fortunately 

 they should ever be discovered. In philosophical zoology, the creation of a new genus 

 is a matter of some moment. The surface of the earth is variously constituted, as to 

 chmate, inequalities, and productions: but nature animates every part of it, and gives 



