312 GEOLOGICAL CRITICISM 
Even the late Prof. J. D. Dana, of the American Journal of 
Science, was not always on guard. Once he returned to the 
author, Dr. Gustav Hinrichs, a brief article on “Pangensis,” which 
contained the clear, graphic and mathematical demonstration of the 
mutation of the metals, wherein it was shown that if a proper 
force could be found that would dislodge a certain number of 
atoms from the lead molecule another metal would be formed, and 
so on, until gold could be obtained. The philosopher’s stone, the 
great quest of the ages, was at last discovered. It was half a 
century before chemists accepted the idea. Another time the dis¬ 
tinguished editor turned down that great article on the “Kettle 
Moraine of the Second Glacial Epoch,” because it was “local 
geology,” thus depriving Professor Chamberlain of the full credit 
of setting forth first the establishment of the complexity of the 
Glacial Period — one of the half dozen great geological thoughts 
of the Nineteenth century. In both cases, long after publication 
in other channels, Dana wrote apologies for his negligence. 
At the close of the discussions and on return from the long 
transcontinental excursions of the Twelfth International Geologi¬ 
cal Congress held in Canada, I wrote out a concise summary of 
opinions that had been expressed by the world’s geologists on Pre- 
Cambrian sedimentation; and because of its especial biotic interest 
the concensus of opinions was sent in to the American Naturalist 
for publication. In the body of the article it was expressly stated 
that it was not a personal argument but a composite. For cen¬ 
sorship the editor unwittingly entrusted the paper to one of his 
University colleagues, who, manifestly utterly unfamiliar with 
the subject matter himself, bumptuously opposed himself to all 
the chief authorities and workers on Pre-Cambrian problems in 
the world, and returned the following archaic expression: 
I cannot see that the manuscript which you sent to me can be called in 
any way a contribution, nor does it even give a summary of current knowl¬ 
edge. It is an assumption of a lot of facts which have not been, in many 
cases, before stated and of course have not been proven. Many of the 
fossils which he calls Pre-Cambric may turn out to be after all Lower 
Cambric. This is not my own opinion alone but that of Professor Roth- 
pletz and others as well. The author does not say anything about the 
fossils he names — not even the classes to which they belong — nor does 
he tell us anything about the history of their discovery. That sort of 
thing would be interesting to the general reader but I do not see that what 
