A. Winchell on the Taconic Oziestion. 361 
light. Mr. Walcott has gone farther than a comprehension of 
the elements of the Taconic question requires. He has followed 
Taconic history too far, and with too much minutise of criticism 
for a broad, judicial contemplation of the essential problem — 
though not, I repeat, too far for the ends of science. He has 
disclosed many egregious errors which, at first view, are rather 
confounding, and suggest that with so much mixture of error, 
confusion and tnuth, it may be best to abandon Taconic to the 
records of the j^ast. But when we rise from the study of these 
perplexing and discouraging features of Taconic history, and 
generalize our field of view again, we observe that after all, they 
are but details, subordinate to the grand fundamental conception 
of a sub-Silurian and sub-Cambrian system of i-ocks and of life. 
As long as Dr. Emmons' central conception remains valid, we 
must not be too exacting in reference to the details of his deter- 
minations. Nor must we mercilessly hold to the standards of 
to-day, the conclusions of a research prosecuted over forty years 
ago, when primordial paljeontology scarcely had existence 
either in America or Great Britian; and when stratigraphic and 
petrographic methods of research were generally no more 
thorough than those which Emmons so long, and so patiently, 
and so full of conviction, pursued. Unfortunate circumstances 
surrounding him gave an adverse set to opinion, which no 
efforts of his friends could change during his life-time. Those 
who knew Dr. Emmons personally can understand some of the 
reasons of this. But personal dislikes are poor arguments, and 
they become contemptible when known only as traditions. We 
are concerned at this day, only for truth and justice. If we 
can discern the grand outlines of truth and justice, we shall not 
be frightened away b}^ some details of error and misconception. 
Viewing the subject in a large way, with a mind free from 
prejudice and prepossession, I feel borne to the conviction that 
the Taconic system has a right to stand. 
2. Defenders of the claims of the Taconic. American de- 
fenders I will not cite; but I wish to quote the judgment of M. 
Barrande, whose competency perha^DS none will question: 
" At its origin, that is to say, from 1S38 to 1844, this Taconic 
system was presented as founded on petrographic and strati- 
graphic observations, and constituted simply the sedimentary 
