science "with a grudging silence as far as public discussion is
concerned" (p. 301).

The truth is that, as every one acquainted with the literature
of the subject was well aware, the views supposed to have
effected this overthrow had been fully and publicly discussed by
Dana in the United States; by Geikie, Green, and Prestwich in
this country; by Lapparent in France; and by Credner in Germany.

(2) The Duke of Argyll says "that no serious reply has ever been
attempted" (p. 305).

The truth is that the highest living authority on the subject,
Professor Dana, published a most weighty reply, two years before
the Duke of Argyll committed himself to this statement.

(3) The Duke of Argyll uses the preceding products of defective
knowledge, multiplied by excessive imagination, to illustrate
the manner in which "certain accepted opinions" established "a
sort of Reign of Terror in their own behalf" (p. 307).

The truth is that no plea, except that of total ignorance of the
literature of the subject, can excuse the errors cited, and that
the "Reign of Terror" is a purely subjective phenomenon.

(4) The letter in "Nature" for the 17th of November, 1887, to
which I am referred, contains neither substantiation, nor
retractation, of statements 1 and 2. Nevertheless, it repeats
number 3. The Duke of Argyll says of his article that it "has
done what I intended it to do. It has called wide attention to