106 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
[We publish the following letter without comment, reserving our 
remarks on the whole subject for a future occasion.— Eds. 1ST. H. R.] 
TO THE EDITORS OF THE NATURAL HISTORY REVIEW AND QUARTERLY JOURNAL 
OF SCIENCE. 
Gentlemen, —The last number of the Review contained an article on 
Mr. Gosse’s “Omphalos” which excited some surprise in my mind. It is 
true the reviewer does not in the least accept Mr. Gosse’s conclusions, 
but he says “the logic of the book is unanswerable,” and compares it 
to Berkeley’s “ Dialogues,” and Eontenelle’s “ Pluralite des Mondes.” 
As Mr. Gosse’s book treats of a subject of which I pretend to some 
knowledge, and as my estimate of that production is very different in¬ 
deed from that given in the article referred to, perhaps you will allow 
me a little space in your next Number to give the reasons for my 
opinion. 
I make no pretensions to skill in the art of logic, but the mere rea¬ 
soning of Mr. Gosse’s book seems to me of the most flimsy character, 
based on what I think logicians would call a “ petitio principii,” and 
involving, I am sure, a “ non-sequitur” of a most prodigious and pal¬ 
pable description. 
What is the meaning, in the first place, of his two so-called 
laws ?— 
1. “ All organic nature moves in a circle.” 
2. “ Creation is a violent eruption into a circle.” 
And how does he demonstrate them ? It appears to me, the demonstra¬ 
tion consists in simply drawing a circle, and arranging the different 
stages of the life of an individual upon it. 
Looked at as a mere diagrammatic form of expression, it is defective, 
since it suggests the idea of individuals reproducing, not their like, but 
themselves. To call the succession of generations, and the consequent 
multiplication of individuals, a circle , is a mere vicious metaphor, unless, 
indeed, we could suppose that a man might beget his own father or 
grandfather, and that the present generation were alike the descendants 
and progenitors of the past. 
Then, what possible benefit can be gained by styling the miracle of 
direct creation a “burstinginto a circle.” 
There is nothing in Oken’s Elements more clumsy and far-fetched in 
expression, and more confused in idea, than this phrase, for there is, in 
reality, no circle; and if there were, the arbitrary commencement of a 
continuous curved line could not be a “ bursting into” the figure, which 
did not exist till the line was completed. 
Reasoning based on a mere metaphorical phraseology, and that of an 
entirely vicious character, cannot lead to any sound conclusion. 
