fer an honour on Barrande. Dana is well
worthy of being a foreign member.

Should you succeed in making Barrande F.R.S., send me word.

LETTER 564. TO J.D. HOOKER. June 5th [1857].

(564/1. The following, which bears on the subject of medals, forms part
of the long letter printed in the "Life and Letters," II., page 100.)

I do not quite agree with your estimate of Richardson's merits. Do, I
beg you (whenever you quietly see), talk with Lyell on Prestwich: if
he agrees with Hopkins, I am silenced; but as yet I must look at the
correlation of the Tertiaries as one of the highest and most frightfully
difficult tasks a man could set himself, and excellent work, as I
believe, P. has done. (564/2. Prof. Prestwich had published numerous
papers dealing with Tertiary Geology before 1857. The contributions
referred to are probably those "On the Correlation of the Lower
Tertiaries of England with those of France and Belgium," "Quart. Journ.
Geol. Soc." Volume X., 1854, page 454; and "On the Correlation of the
Middle Eocene Tertiaries of England, France, and Belgium," ibid., XII.,
1856, page 390.) I confess I do not value Hopkins' opinion on such a
point. I confess I have never thought, as you show ought to be done, on
the future. I quite agree, under all circumstances, with the propriety
of Lindley. How strange no new geologists are coming forward! Are there
not lots of good young chemists and astronomers or physicists? Fitton
is the only old geologist left who has done good work, except Sedgwick.
Have you thought of him? He would be a brilliant companion for Lindley.
Only it would never do to give Lyell a Copley and Sedgwick a Royal in
the same year. It seems wrong that there should be three Natural Science
medals in the same year. Lindley, Sedgwick, and Bunsen sounds well,
and Lyell next year for the Copley. (564/3. In 1857 a Royal medal was
awarded to John Lindley; Lyell received the Copley in 1858, and Bunsen
in 1860.) You will see that I am speculating as a mere idle amateur.

LETTER 565. TO S.P. WOODWARD. Down, May 27th [1856].

I am very much obliged to you for having taken the trouble to answer
my query so fully. I can now be at rest, for from what you say and from
what little I remember Forbes said, my point is unanswerable. The case
of Terebratula is to the point as far as it goes, and is negative.
I have already attempted to get a solution through geographical
distribution by Dr. Hooker's means, and he finds t