; and the period of
_cattle and beasts of the earth_;' and that the first of these periods
is represented by the rocks grouped under the term _Palaeozoic_, and is
distinguished from the _Secondary_ and _Tertiary_ chiefly by its
gorgeous flora; and that the geological evidence is so complete as to be
patent to all, that the first great period of organized being was, as
described in the Mosaic record, peculiarly a period of herbs and trees,
yielding seed after their kind. The general reader, not familiar with
the details of geological arrangement, could not fail to infer from such
a statement, used for such a purpose, that the Palaeozoic rocks are
regarded by geologists as forming one group representative of one
period, which can properly be said to be distinguished as a _whole_ by
its gorgeous flora; and that it is properly so distinguished _for the
argument in question_. It was familiar to the Academy, as well as to Mr.
Miller, that from the _carboniferous_ rocks downward (backward in order
of time), there have been discriminated a large number of periods,
differing from one another in mineral and in organic remains; and that
the proportion of the _carboniferous_ era to the whole series is small,
whether we regard the thickness of its deposits or its conjectural
chronology. It in only of this _carboniferous_ era, _the latest of this
series_, that the author's remarks could be true; and even of this, if
taken for the entire surface of the earth, it could not be truly
asserted that 'the evidence is so complete as to be patent to all,' that
the quantity of its vegetable products distinguishes it from the earth's
surface during the era in which we live. To confound by implication all
this periods termed Palaeozoic, so as to apply to them as a whole what
could be true, if at all, only of the _carboniferous_ period, is a
fallacious use of a generalization _made for a purpose_, and upon a
principle not properly available for the writer's argument," &c. So far
the "Proceedings" of the Academy.

This, surely, is very much the reverse of fair. I, however, refer the
matter, without note or comment (so far at least as it involves the
question whether Mr. Foulke has not, in the face of the most express
statement on my part, wholly misrepresented me), to the judgment of
candid and intelligent readers on both sides of the Atlantic.

I know not that I should recognize Mr. Foulke as entitled, after such a
display, to be dealt with simp