AS A GEOLOGIST Lecture delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons of England on 10th December, 1952 by F. Wood Jones, F.R.S., F.R.C.S. MORE THAN A DOZEN full-length biographies of John Hunter have been published; over eighty Hunterian Orations have been delivered in this College and a Society to perpetuate his memory has been in existence for more than a hundred and thirty years. Hunter has been lauded as a surgeon, as a comparative anatomist and as a physiologist. Full tribute has been paid to his skill as an experimenter and to his industry and discrimination in building up his vast collection of specimens. But with all this outpouring of genuine appreciation of his great attainments, John Hunter remains practically unknown as a pioneer in the study of geology and paleontology. No mention is made of Hunter, or his contribution to geological knowledge, in any of the standard works dealing with the history of geology and paleontology. Starting with the great work of Karl Alfred Von Zittel, published in 1899, and until the recent monograph by Charles Coulston Gillespie in 1951, we seek in vain for any reference to the man or to his work on paleontology. It is perhaps more remarkable that his contributions to geological science are not mentioned by Dr. R. G. Willis in his paper on " The Contributions of British Medical Men to the foundations of Geology," published in 1834. In this review, Willis gives a full account of the work of James Parkinson (1755-1824) whose three monumental volumes entitled " Organic Remains of a Former World" were published from 1804 to 1811. Parkinson, a surgeon of Hoxton, had been Hunter's pupil during the years 1775-1776 and had taken down his surgical lectures verbatim in shorthand. But although in his preface he acknowledges his obligations to the Curators of the Hunterian Museum, he makes no comments on the Hunterian collection of fossils beyond an occasional reference, at second hand, to some particular specimen described by other writers. It is of interest, in the present connection, that six years after his work on fossils was com- pleted, Parkinson published his celebrated " Essay on the Shaking Palsy" and so earned eponymous immortality in Parkinson's Disease. Even in the absence of any expressed appreciation of Hunter's work by his contemporaries or by his successors, it is true to say that had he left no other record of his genius than his work on geology and his great collection of fossils, he would still rank among the founders of modern science. It is one of the greatest tragedies of the air-raid disaster of 1941 that of his nearly three thousand carefully selected and precisely authenticated specimens of fossil plants and animals only a few scorched fragments now remain. But the main factor that has prevented the recognition of 219 F. WOOD JONES Hunter's remarkable genius as an interpreter of the past phases of the Earth's surface and of its living inhabitants is the circumstance that, although written sometime about 1790, his treatise was not published until 1859. Moreover, the form of its publication and the incidents attendant on it were such as almost to prohibit its reaching those who alone were competent to appreciate its merits. Some understanding of the circum- stances attaching to this publication is therefore essential to the proper estimation of Hunter's place as a pioneer of geological science. To this end, an inquiry has been made into the historical facts concerning the vicissitudes of the existing manuscripts of the " Observations and Re- flections on Geology." This would have proved to be an impossible task without free access to the minute books and other contemporary manuscript sources in the possession of the Royal College of Surgeons. Even with this source of information placed freely at my disposal, there still remain some very curious details of considerable obscurity in the story. We have it on the assurance of that the " manuscript was one of those which Mr. Hunter revised, and made many additions to, in probably the last year of his life, but certainly within the last two." According to Owen, the manuscripts were written by Clift from Hunter's dictation and certainly one of the existing manuscripts is wholly in Clift's handwriting, but that it was written at Hunter's dictation is certainly not correct. The entire work consisted of two parts and when Part I was completed, Hunter is said to have taken steps to secure its publication. Owen records what he had heard of the circumstances that led to it remaining unpublished at the time of Hunter's death and so passing, along with the other Hunterian manuscripts, into the custody of Everard Home, his brother-in-law. Everard Home told Clift that Hunter had sent Part I for publication to the Royal Society. The paper was submitted to Major Rennell* as a distinguished authority on the geological features of the countries in which he had been employed as a geographer. In speaking of " extraneous fossils," Hunter had said that " many retain some of their form for many thousand centuries" (p. 3). He made no comment whatever on the fact that this period was at complete variance with the orthodox teaching, based on the chronology of Archbishop Ussher, concerning the time during which the earth had existed since the creation. A copy, in Clift's handwriting, of Rennell's letter commenting upon this statement is included in the manuscript and was subsequently printed in the published version. He reminds Hunter that there are " very numerous persons . . . who will dislike any mention of a specific period that ascends beyond 6,000 years"; and he suggests that " centuries" should be changed to " years." According to Everard Home, Hunter refused to make this alteration and withdrew his paper.

* James Rennell (1742-1830) was in the service of the East India Company and was Surveyor-General of Bengal (1764). Author of works on the geography of Western Asia, Africa and the Atlantic. 220 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST It seems quite certain that this story is apocryphal. No record exists of the paper having been received by the Royal Society; and I am informed that at that time it would have been a most unusual thing for the Society to have submitted it to a referee. Also, since Rennell's letter is addressed personally to Hunter and not to an official of the Society, it is most probable that it was Hunter himself who asked for criticism and it is quite certain that he did act on the advice that Rennell gave him. There are two extant volumes of manuscript in the possession of the College. The provenance of the first is well authenticated. According to Owen (" Essays and Observations." Vol. I. p. 294): " After the demise of the first Sir Everard Home, it was transmitted by his son, Captain Sir E. Home, R.N., to this College; the minute recording its reception bears the date April 2nd, 1839." Later (" Essays and Obser- vations." Vol. II, p. 500), Owen cites the minute: " Mr. Clift laid before the Committee, presented to the Museum by Capt. Sir Everard Home, Bart., the manuscript of the first part of Mr. Hunter's ' Intro- duction to the Catalogue of his Collection of Extraneous Fossils,' con- taining many of Mr. Hunter's corrections of the manuscript." Clift, on the fly-leaf of the other manuscript volume, gives further details. He says: " 1839. Memorandum concerning ' Part First.' On the day of the delivery of the Hunterian Oration, February 14th, 1839, at the entrance to the theatre of the visitors and Council, Mr. Keate* put into my hands a thin volume, desiring me to look at it afterwards. Mr. Keate had doubtless (or probably) just received it from Captain Sir Everard Home, who was among the visitors. This volume had evidently been lately bound in calf, and contains a portion of Mr. Hunter's manuscript introduction to a history of fossils, and consists of seventy-two leaves written on one side; and numerous additions on the opposite or blank pages. It is evidently only a part of the manuscript by the catchword at the foot of the last page. The book-binder had been directed to put on the back ' Hunter's Catalogue (!!) of Fossils,' and within, on the title page, in Capt. Home's handwriting, 'Catalogue (!) of Mr. Hunter's Cabinet of Fossils now in the College of Surgeons, corrected by him-self." Beneath this account, Clift adds: " N.B. That this manuscript was one of those which Mr. Hunter revised and made many additions to, in probably the last year of his life, but certainly within the last two, is evident from the fact that many of the pages are in my hand-writing, and occasionally afterwards interlined and emended by additions in Mr. Hunter's hand- writing: and some of the additional notes are begun by Mr. Hunter, and were then given to me to copy in the remainder of the sentence from his loose slips. This volume is certainly a curiosity in its way; and after this, one need not despair of seeing the Fabulous Phoenix proved to be no Fable; and both him and the Dodo emerge from their Ashes, or their other obscure haunts. Wm. Clift." On the reverse of the fly-leaf, * Robert Keate (1777-1857). Surgeon to St. George's Hospital. President of the College: 1830, 1831 and 1839. 221 F. WOOD JONES Clift gives a transcript of correspondence with Keate as to whether the little volume was a gift to the College or only a loan. Thisfirst manuscript volume in its present condition is a slim, calf-bound book, 91 x 73 inches, consisting of 73 pages written on only one side of the sheet. It is, for the most part, in the handwriting of William Bell, though some pages (pp. 12-14, 29-40, 43-46, as well as some later insertions) are written by Clift. The fact that so much of the manuscript is in the hand- writing of William Bell is evidence that the greater part of the uncorrected draft was written before 1790, when Bell left Hunter's service to take up his post in Sumatra. Page 73 bears the catchword " where formed." The title-page is as follows: " Of Extraneous Fossils" (in Bell's hand- writing), with " Part First" added in Hunter's handwriting, " Catalogue of Mr. Hunter's Cabinet of Fossils, now in the Col. of Surgeons, corrected by him-self." This last, fide Clift, is in the handwriting of Capt. Sir Everard Home. Beneath this, in Clift's writing, is " From Robert Keate, Esq., Feb. 14th, 1839. Wm. Clift." Throughout the manuscript are corrections and additions in Hunter's handwriting. These insertions are in ink. In addition, there are several marks and notes in pencil by Owen. Opposite p. 7 is an insertion by Owen written in ink. This insertion was included and amplified by Owen in his Lectures on Hunter's Geology (" Essays and Observations." Vol. I. Lecture 3. pp. 303-304). The second volume of manuscript in the possession of the College is a vellum-bound book, 91 x 71 inches, consisting of 105 pages written on both sides of the sheet. This is followed by a large number of blank sheets and then, at the other end (and written as beginning from the end), 34 pages also written on both sides of the sheet. On the vellum cover at one end is hand-printed in ink " On Extraneous Fossils, by John Hunter, F.R.S.", and on the other cover (the reverse way up), " On the Pneumo- branchiata, by John Hunter, F.R.S."* Page 1 of the " Extraneous Fossils " is headed: " Verbatim Copy of Mr. Hunter's (unpublished) manuscript ' On Fossils' by Wm. Clift. Of Extraneous Fossils. Part the First." This volume contains both parts of the work, Part I occupying pp. 1-56 and Part II., pp. 56-105. On p. 105 is written " The End." The catchword from Part I to Part II, " where formed," is as in the separate manuscript of Part I. At the end of Part I on p. 56, Clift adds: "End of Capt. Sir E. Home's volume brought Feb. 14th, 1839, collated so far, March 13th, 1839. W.C." Concerning this volume of manuscript there is some ambiguity encountered when the College records are consulted. The author of the offending preface to the final publication of the work says: " The second manuscript, entirely in Mr. Clift's hand- writing, contains an accurate copy of Part First from the first manuscript, with a continuation and conclusion of the subject, Part Second. It is believed that this second part must have been copied by Mr. Clift from an original MS. between the months of February and April, 1839. Nothing * The matter contained in the account of the Pneumobranchiata is reproduced in "Essays and Observations. Vol. II. p. 382 et seq. 222 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST is known of such original, which certainly is not to be found among the papers of the College." The suggestion that Clift wrote the manuscript in 1839 is frankly absurd, for most probably the original manuscript of Part II had been destroyed by Everard Home in 1823. It is true that in 1839 Clift made notes in the manuscript after receiving the original of Part I from Captain Sir Everard Home; but it is quite evident that he had made copies of both parts of the work before the originals fell into the hands of Sir Everard Home in 1800 after Hunter's death. There can be no doubt that both parts of the manuscript passed into the possession of Home and, although that of Part I somehow escaped destruction, that of Part II was burnt or lost. Meanwhile, Clift had evidently made copies of both Parts I and II during the quiet evenings after Hunter's death in 1793, when he was in charge of the manuscripts before they had been removed to Everard Home's private house in 1800. It is highly improbable that Clift wrote the manuscript from Hunter's dictation, as Owen suggests, since the manuscript of Part I is largely in the handwriting of Bell. We can ignore altogether the crude innuendo in the draft for the original preface to the 1859 publication whfch states that "although the MSS. must have been in the College at the time, either overlooked by the Council, or purposely withheld from their knowledge." Clift's copies of the manuscripts of both parts of the work had evidently been in the possession of the College ever since the transfer of the Hunterian collection into their custody. To accuse anyone of withholding the knowledge of the manuscripts from the Council during the interim was a particularly reprehensible subterfuge. There is, however, another curious circumstance attaching to the story of the manuscripts, for it is quite certain that neither of the existing copies is the original that was submitted to Major Rennell for his comments. There can be no doubt that Rennell read an earlier manuscript which was apparently destroyed after, as Clift states, it had been revised by Hunter. In Rennell's undated letter, as copied by Clift, he alludes to Hunter's expression of " many thousands of centuries." In both the existing manuscripts the actual term employed is " many thousands of years" (MSS. pp. 7 and 5). It would therefore appear that, in the end, Hunter had taken Rennell's advice and made the alteration which he suggested. It seems remarkable that the editor of the published volume should have taken the liberty of altering the only manuscript at his disposal so as to make it fit in with Rennell's comments. It is also strange that in his letter Rennell went on to say: " Again in page 8 you haverather questioned the knowledge of a Certain Person (Moses); that also is tender ground with some people, and at this time we must not let the vulgar know how far we believe in the books of Moses." No such reference appears in either of the existing manuscripts and, probably for this reason, it was omitted from the letter as this was printed in 1859. Another source of confusion is introduced by the fact that all the page references in the original letter have been altered so as to make them coincide with the 223 F. WOOD JONES pagination of the printed volume and not, as Rennell wrote them, in reference to the manuscript that he had read. It is clear that none of Rennell's references refers to the pagination of either of the existing manuscripts, but to the original draft submitted to him either by Hunter or by the Royal Society. It seems strange that the editor of the publication took no note of this discrepancy which makes it so clearly apparent that Rennell's criticisms were made after the reading of a manuscript very different from that from which the volume was printed. In 1855, Owen took as the subject of his course of Hunterian lectures the general review of Hunter's contributions to paleontology and geology. The lectures were delivered at the College on March 6th, 8th and 10th.* The first lecture dealt with the general aspect of the subject and a review of the Hunterian specimens upon which his knowledge was largely founded. The second was devoted to reading the unpublished manu- script and the third to an analysis of its contents. When Owen gave this series of lectures "'explanatory of Hunter's Manuscript Essay ' On Extraneous Fossils ' ", it seems that it could only have been the manuscript of Part I that he had before him, for it was not until December 8th, 1859, that Mr. South reported that " the attention of the Museum Committee had been drawn to a second Hunterian Manuscript on the same subject." This second manuscript referred to was obviously the vellum-bound volume wholly in Clift's handwriting. If this statement is correct, it is obvious that the College authorities had cognisance of the whole manu- script only a fortnight before the issue of the printed volume and that, therefore, the preparation of the manuscript for publication must have been conducted with extreme haste. Owen himself gives us a definite clue when he says ofthe manuscript which he read from the Chair on March 8th, 1855: "Almost every page bears some correction or addition in the handwriting of John Hunter himself." Since in Clift's vellum-bound volume of manuscript there are no such corrections, it would seem obvious that only the manuscript of Part I was available to Owen. In his third lecture, as printed in " Essays and Observations " (Vol. I, pp. 297-340), however, he makes quotations from both Part I and Part II: but it is important to notice that his page references throughout are to the printed volume of 1859 and not to either of the manuscripts. We may be certain therefore that, when he published this lecture in 1861, he relied on the printed version of 1859 and, this being so, it is obvious that the form in which it appeared in print must have differed very considerably from that in which it was delivered six years previously. Owen's lectures were delivered as a definite tribute to the memory of Hunter. There was no sort of pretence that the subject matter was original with Owen and no sort of hint that the Hunterian manuscript was not available to him. Owen introduced the manuscript of Part I to his audience with an account of the manner in which it had come into the * On the title-page of " Essays and Observations, these dates are wrongly given as March 8th 10th and 12th. 224 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST possession of the authorities of the College. He made no pretence that he was divulging the contents of a document only recently discovered as being in the possession of the College, for he knew well that it had been available for nearly twenty years before his lectures were delivered. That Owen's lectures in 1855 should have " suddenly and unexpectedly brought the knowledge of the existence of the manuscript to the notice of the Council " can only argue a dereliction of duties on the part of those responsible for the recording of the College manuscripts or-and this is far more likely-a failure on the part of the officials to have a proper regard for the Hunterian specimens and manuscripts placed in their custody. Owen had already done a great deal of work on the preparation of the final volume of the Catalogue of Hunterian Fossils and had com- pleted the section dealing with the Cephalopods and made notes for the descriptive account of the Gasteropods, which together form the major part of the volume. In February, 1855, Owen applied to the Museum Committee for permission to incorporate Hunter's manuscript on Fossils as an introduction to this catalogue. On May 26th, 1856, Owen was offered the post of Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum. He resigned from the Conservatorship of the Hunterian Museum and entered on his new office on June 8th. He therefore did not see the final volume of the Catalogue of Fossils through the press. It was edited by John Morris* and was published in 1856; but the Hunterian manuscript was not incorporated with it as Owen had suggested. Owen therefore wrote on October 25th, 1859, a respectful request to the President and Council " for information as to its publication, since he was anxious to include it among the papers he was arranging for his work on 'John Hunter's Essays and Observations on Natural History'."t To this request, the Secretary, Edmund Belfour, replied on November 11th that the matter was " under consideration " by the Council. The Council thereafter acted-with remarkable rapidity. On November 19th the Museum Committee recommended that the manuscript should be immediately prepared for publication, and on November 24th, the Council approved and adopted the recommendation. On December 8th Mr. South4 reported that " the attention of the Museum Committee had been drawn to a second Hunterian Manuscript on the same subject." This second manuscript referred to was the vellum-bound volume in Clift's handwriting. The Council moved " that the Museum Committee do prepare for the press and direct the printing thereof for publication as * John Morris (1810-1886) was a geologist who started life as a pharmaceutical chemist. Professor of Geology at University College, (1854-1877). t " Essays and Observations on Natural History, Anatomy, Physiology and Geology by John Hunter. F.R.S., being his posthumous papers on these subjects, arranged and revised, with notes: to which are added the introductory lectures on the Hunterian Collection of fossil remains delivered in the theatre of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, March 8th, 10th, and 12th, 1855. By Richard Owen. 2 Vols. London. 1861. : John Flint South (1797-1882) was President in 1851 and again in 1860. Anatomist and Surgeon, St. Thomas's Hospital. 225 F. WOOD JONES the Council may direct." The work was printed by the College printers, Messrs. Taylor and Francis, and was actually issued before the end of the month. The printed volume is a slim quarto of 58 pages, the first 34 pages being devoted to Part I. It is entitled " Observations and Reflections on Geology," by John Hunter, F.R.S., intended to serve as an introduction to the " Catalogue ofhis Collection ofExtraneous Fossils." Owen received his copy on December 23rd and his attention was at once directed to the Preface. On the 29th he wrote to the Council lodging a formal protest on the wording of the account of the discovery of the manuscripts. Receiving no reply to this letter, he wrote again on January 2nd " urging a speedy reply." In his account of this incident, Owen, in the Appendix to " Essays and Observations," gives only the gist of the correspondence; but in the College Minutes, the letters are reproduced verbatim and it is from this source that their contents are here reproduced in full. At a meeting of the Museum Committee, held on January 5th, 1860, it was reported that the following letter from Mr. Owen was enclosed in a letter to the Secretary of the same date requesting that it might be submitted to the President and Council at the earliest opportunity, viz.: Sheen Lodge, Richmond Park, 29th December, 1859 Mr. President and Gentlemen, In the volume containing the Hunterian Manuscript on " Geology," of which a copy was transmitted to me on the 23rd. inst. by direction of the President, the Council, in their Preface, have published the following statement: " This Introduction, on which Mr. Hunter had bestowed so much time and labour to within a short time of his death, revising and correcting it from time to time, was not prefixed as he intended to the Catalogue of his Collection of Fossils and is neither mentioned nor alluded to, in either of the three volumes of the Descriptive Catalogue of the Fossil Organic Remains in the College Museum, published respectively in 1845, 1854 and 1856. It is greatly to be regretted that it was not brought under the notice, either of the Museum Committee, or of the Council of the College. The attention of the Council was, however, unexpec- tedly drawn to it in 1856 when it was read from the chair by the then Hunterian Professor." Now this involves a great charge against me, as it is generally known that I was that Professor, and at the same time Curator of your Museum, to whom as is recorded in your " Minutes " you had confided the preparation of the first two and part of the third volumes of the Catalogue referred to, it will be as generally inferred and believed that I have been guilty of the breach of trust implied in the above allegation. It ought to be in the memory of Members of the Museum Committee and on the Minutes of a meeting at which Mr. Guthrie* was present, that I mentioned, in, I believe the month of February, 1855, the propriety of publishing the manuscript in question in the concluding volume of the Catalogue of Fossils, then in course of preparation. Mr. Guthrie, on my replying to his questions that the Manuscript did not contain any description of the specimens and would require certain annotations, objected to the consideration of its publication at that time, as an element of delay ; stating that what was then imperatively wanted, was the completion of the Catalogue of the Specimens. Believing that the Museum Committee had not rightly appreciated my explanation of the nature and value of the Manuscript, I thought it my duty to make it the subject of the introductory Lectures to my Hunterian Course on Fossil Remains of the year 1855. Those lectures were delivered in the Theatre of the College on the 6th, 8th and 10th March, 1855. I enclose a copy of the " Synopsis " of those lectures published by the College, a duplicate of which will be found with the other printed Collegiate documents in the archives of the College. * George James Guthrie (1785-1856). President of the College: 1833, 1841 and 1854. Best known as a military surgeon. 226 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST The charge against me, as the Hunterian Professor and the Curator of the Museum, to whom had been confided the preparation of the Catalogue of Fossils, of having failed to bring under the notice of the Museum Committee or Council of the College, the existence of the Hunterian Manuscript on Fossils until the year 1856, and, by implication, when it was too late to append it to the final volume of the Catalogue printed in that year, is chiefly based upon the substitution by the Council in the " Preface " p. 3., of a wrong date, viz. 1856 for the true date 1855, when I read the manuscript in question from the Hunterian Chair. The " Minutes of the Council " for the year 1855 will show the fact and date of the resolution of the Council to suspend the Lecture for the year 1856. I therefore call upon you, the President and Council of the College of Surgeons, after you have assured yourselves of the accuracy of the date of the public Lectures in which your attention was fully and emphatically drawn to the Hunterian Manuscript in question, to publicly acknowledge the inaccuracy of the grounds of your published charge and to exonerate me from the grave consequences of such alleged breach of confidence and duty, as attaches to me, in the said allegation, in this " Preface " prefixed by your sanction and authority to the work entitled " Observations and Reflections on Geology " by John Hunter, F.R.S. 4to. Lond. 1859. I must add that if, according to the spirit of our English procedures, the nature of the charge reflecting upon your Hunterian Professor and your Officer entrusted with the preparation of the Catalogue in question had been submitted to me prior to the infliction of the official publication of such charge, I should have been able to furnish the Council with the proofs above cited, which would have shown that I had drawn their attention to the Hunterian Manuscript on Fossils more than a year before the last volume of the Catalogue of Fossils was published. I rely on the honour of the Council to do me promptly the justice I now demand, for you must be aware that, meanwhile, I am subject to the invidious insinuation which may be based upon a statement involving a charge preferred by so important a profes- sional and social Body in a public allegation moreover contradicted by the actual facts, which might have been known to you, on the most cursory inquiry, and which are patent upon the face of a published document emanating from the Council itself. I am, Mr. President and Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, RICHARD OWEN The following reply was sent to Owen by the Secretary: Royal College of Surgeons of England 31st December, 1859 Sir, I am desired by the President to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th inst. and to acquaint you that the same will be laid before the Council at its next meeting. In the meantime I am directed by the President to acquaint you that yourself, Mr. Baillie and Mr. Lingen, with the exception of some Members of the Council, are the only persons who have yet obtained copies of the Publication and that the same will be immediately recalled. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, EDMUND BELFOUR Secretary. To this, Owen replied: Sheen Lodge, Richmond Park January 2nd, 1860 Sir, Your letter of the 31st December, 1859, was received here on the following morning. My attention had been called on the previous day, at the British Museum, to a para- graph in the " Lancet" of that date, giving all the publicity to the libel on me which its authors intended. It was deemed advisable that I should forthwith reply to that Paragraph as my relations to the Trustees of the British Museum, in being entrusted by them with the preparation of catalogues and with all the confidential documents connected therewith, are precisely those which I am alleged to have abused at the College of Surgeons. The President, therefore, will perceive the extreme gravity of the official accusation or insinuation which he has sanctioned. 227 18 F. WOOD JONES I must add that the usual feelings of one gentleman towards another would have led to an immediate summons of a special Council, in order that there should be no delay in repairing, on the necessity of a reparation being demonstrated, the vital injury which he inflicted by a public charge affecting character. The apathy manifested by deferring such a matter to the next ordinary meeting of the Council, as you have been desired by the President to acquaint me, leaves me no alternative than to state that if, within a week of the present date, such redress as I have had to seek at the hands of the Council be not amply and publicly accorded, I shall be compelled with deep regret, to appeal for it through those laws which have been provided for cases of such unprovoked injury as I have received. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, RICHARD OWEN.

The Secretary reported to the meeting that all the copies of the Publication that had gone out had been received back with the exception of the copy sent to Mr. Owen and of a copy which Mr. Queckett had sent to Mr. Owen at his own request. He read the paragraph in the Preface referred to in Owen's letter and also laid before the meeting the article in the " Lancet" of December 31st upon the subject of the Preface. In the upshot, the meeting resolved: " That it be recommended to the Council that the said Paragraph in the Preface be cancelled and that the following letter be transmitted to Mr. Owen.":

Royal College of Surgeons of England 6th January, 1860 Sir, The Council of the Royal College of Surgeons of England have to-day under their consideration your letter of the 29th December, calling their attention to a passage in the Preface to the proposed publication of the Hunterian Manuscript on Geology which you considered to involve injurious reflections upon you, and calling upon them after assuring themselves of the accuracy of the dates to which you refer, to publicly acknowledge the inaccuracy of the grounds of the charge of breach of confidence and duty on your part which you conceive the preface to allege against you. In consequence of your letter an investigation has been made and the result of it is to satisfy the Council that the date of your lectures as Hunterian Professor is as you mention inaccurately stated in the preface and that the actual date was 1855 and not 1856. It was. too, as you suppose, upon the substitution of a wrong date for the true date of these lectures that the statement in question was chiefly based. The Council, therefore, consider it to be due to you, as well as to themselves, to express their great regret that such a mistake should have occurred, and to withdraw all impu- tations which the preface in question can be considered to cast upon you. They have also recalled the few copies of the work which had been delivered to the persons men- tioned in my former letter and have directed that the passage shall be entirely omitted from the work when published. The Council are sorry that you could not wait a reasonable time for their answer to your letter-especially as you were assured by my reply of the 31st December that the few copies of the work which had been delivered had been recalled, and that you should have thought it right to address to them such a communication as yours of the 2nd instant, in which in a manner quite inconsistent with your former letter, you refer to the passage in question as a libel intentionally published against you, and threaten legal proceedings if your requests were not complied with within a week. The Council have, however, not allowed themselves to be influenced by the last letter of yours, or to be deterred by it from offering to you the reparation to which they feel you are entitled. They regretted to find that the preface had been published in the " Lancet " and I am desired to inform you, that it was not thro' any act of the Council that such publication took place. But publicity having been given to the preface in that Periodical, the Council will have no objection to this letter being published if you desire it in the "Lancet". 228 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST I beg to add that there is no such minute as you suppose of the Museum Committee, and that neither of the living members of the Committee have any recollection of the Manuscript having been mentioned at either of those meetings. I am, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, EDMUND BELFOUR The letter eventually sent to Owen by the Council, however, differs from that recommended by the Museum Committee and cited above. The actual text of this letter is as follows Sir, The Council of the Royal College of Surgeons of England have had under their consideration your letters of the 29th December and 2nd January, drawing their atten- tion to a passage in the Preface to the proposed publication of the Hunterian Manuscript on Geology, which you consider to involve injurious reflections upon you and calling upon them, after assuring themselves of the inaccuracy of the dates to which you refer. to publicly acknowledge the inaccuracy of the grounds of the charge of breach of confidence and duty on your part which you conceive the Preface to allege against you. In consequence of your letters, inquiry has been made, and the Council find that the date of your lectures as Hunterian Professor is, as you mention, inaccurately referred to in the Preface, and that the actual date was 1855 and not 1856. The Council therefore consider it to be due to you, as well as to themselves, to express their regret that such a mistake should have occurred, and to withdraw all imputations which the passage in question can be considered to cast upon you. They have also directed that the passage be expunged, and the Preface reprinted without it. I beg to add that there is no such minute of the Museum Committee as you suppose, and that neither of the living members of the Committee have any recollection of your having suggested to them the propriety of publishing the Manuscript. EDMUND BELFOUR, Secretary It is to be noticed that this letter, dated January 9th, which was published by Owen in the " Lancet" on January 21st and also in the Appendix to " Essays and Observations," differs from that recommended by the Museum Committee in that it omits all allusions to the fact that Owen had threatened the Council with legal proceedings. To this letter, Owen replied briefly: Sir, I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th instant and regret the necessity of the appeal to which the Council, with the exception of certain members of the Museum Committee of 1855, have satisfactorily responded. This letter was read to the members of the Museum Committee on January 12th, 1860 and with its receipt the incident terminated.- The " Lancet," after publishing (on December 31st) the offending paragraph from the Preface and making the comments on it to which Owen took strong exception, made reparation to him in a very characteristic article in the issue of January 7th, 1860. After reviewing all the facts of the matter, the article ends: " It is with infinite pain we find it possible that such a course should have been adopted by a body so important, and in whose honour we are all so much interested, as the Council of the Royal College of Surgeons. But these counter-statements of Professor Owen are all supported by the irrefragable testimony of printed and written documents officially issued by the College. It is difficult to conceive what explanation the Council can offer of their reasons for such proceedings. We earnestly hope that they may be enabled, in some way, to show that this had not been the official act of their whole body, and thus shift from the corporation a stigma by which every Fellow and Member is, however innocently, personally affected." 229 18 2 F. WOOD JONES It is one of the unexplained circumstances in this curious story, that the " Lancet " obtained a copy of the Preface in time to write their com- ments on it for publication in the issue of December 31st. In the letter recommended by the Museum Committee for transmission to Owen (January 6th) the Secretary is instructed to include the para- graph: " They regretted to find that the preface had been published in the " Lancet " and I am desired to inform you, that it was not thro' any act of the Council that such publication took place." But in the letter (January 9th) actually despatched by the Council, no reference is made to the matter. The source and, what is equally important, the fate of the copy from which the " Lancet " took the preface muot remain unknown. The importance of the matter lies in the faict that at the meeting of the Museum Committee on January 5th " The Secretary reported that all the copies of the Publication which had gone out had been received back with the exception of the copy sent to Mr. Owen and a copy which Mr. Queckett had sent to Mr. Owen at his own request." It is not at all probable that either of these copies could have been the source of the " Lancet's" information, since the volume would seem to have been definitely submitted to that journal in order that it might be used as the text for an attack on Owen's conduct. Following these events, the Council appears to have again acted with considerable promptitude. If the statement that all the copies put into circulation had been received back, with the exception of the two that came into Owen's possession, is correct, it is to be presumed that they, together with those already printed, but not distributed, were either destroyed or were returned to the printer for the purpose of substituting the amended preface. No pronouncement to this effect was made, how- ever, by the Council and there appears to be no record as to the disposal of the copies of the first issue that were in the possession of the College. No copy of the first issue now exists in the College Library, nor is the fact of its publication recorded in any work dealing with the bibliography of John Hunter. What happened to Owen's own copy has not been determined; but that handed by the Council to Queckett on Owen's behalf is still in existence. It is in the library of the British Museum (Natural History) and I am much indebted to the Librarian for permission to inspect it. It is remarkable in that it is labelled as being by John Hunter and " Edited by Richard Owen." Even the printed preface has been signed, in ink, " Rd. Owen ": but the signature is undoubtedly not in the handwriting of Owen and the same applies to other "igned and initialled notes made in the volume. Moreover, some pencilled notes, undoubtedly written by Owen, have been partly erased, written over in ink and signed by the same signature, " Rd. Owen." This is obviously the copy used by Owen when writing his third lecture in " Essays and Observations " since all the passages quoted in this lecture are indicated 230 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST by pencilled marks. If there is one thing certain about the anonymous editorship of the College publication, it is that Richard Owen had nothing whatever to do with it. It is by a curious chance that two printed copies of the original preface and a manuscript draft of the offending paragraph are now in possession of the College. These are contained in the " J. H. Watson Collection of Papers,"* acquired by the College in 1946. The history of these papers is as follows. William Stone was appointed College Beadle in 1811. His son, Thomas Madden Stone, became assistant in the library in 1832 and was subsequently Clerk to the College from 1853 to 1871. After his death, which occurred " sometime in the 1890's," his widow and daughter lived in London in somewhat reduced circumstances. Dr. Watson attended the daughter during an illness while he was in London in the early years of this century. It was as a result of this introduction and as a token of gratitude on behalf of the widow that Watson became possessed of certain historic relics that had been got together by two generations of the Stone family during their long connection with the College. Among the manuscripts are a number of notes and observations in the hand- writing of William Clift, many of which are ofconsiderable historic import- ance. The original draft of the offending paragraph in the preface, preFerved in this collection of manuscripts, is written in a sprawling and untidy handwriting and is much scored and corrected. It is not possible at the present time to determine the authorship of this script. It reads as follows: " This introduction, on which Mr. Hunter had bestowed so much thought and labour anxiously revising and correcting it so as to render it more worthy of the public eye to within a short time before his death, was not prefixed, as he had intended, to the first volume of the Catalogue of his Collection of Fossils. It is neither mentioned, nor alluded to in either of the three volumes of the Descriptive Catalogue of the Fossil Organic Remains in the Museum of the College, published respectively in 1845, 1854 and 1856, although the MSS. must have been in the College at the time, either over- looked by the Council, or purposely withheld from their knowledge. In directing the separate publication of this introduction it came to light suddenly and unexpectedly on when it was read from the Chair by the Hunterian Professor." It is noteworthy that the writer of the original draft was evidently not, off-hand, prepared to fill in the date on which the manus cript was read from the Chair and it is to be presumed that he delegated this item to someone who had the misfortune to make the crucial blunder of inserting 1856 instead of 1855. In addition to the omission of the date, various deletions and alterations are made by the original writer and, unless a frir copy was made, it must have been a sore trial to the printer. The printer's first proof (which is preserved) needed only a minor verbal alteration and the final proof is in the form in which it has been quoted and as it is reproduced here. Despite the kindly cooperation of Messrs. Taylor and Francis, the printers of the volume, little can be ascertained as to the fate of the copies * J. H. Watson (b. Atherton, Lancs. 1875. d. Burnley, November 27th., 1944). Qualified 1897. Demonstrator of Anatomy, London Hospital, 1902. M.B., B.S. (Lond.) 1903. F.R.C.S. 1904. Afterwards took the practice of Mackenzie of Burnley and married the daughter of Professor Humphries of Birmingham. 231 F. WOOD JONES

, p,_, 1ntoUtIa, en;bn Mt liie hdhbetoa sr ma thogh i~t _ao tog

Fig.~~~~~~~~~~ ..1

of the second issue. It is unfortunate that their records covering this period were destroyed by enemy action and no details as to the number of copiec printed is now ascertainable. It is probable that the issue was a small one and that only comparatively few copies were bound for distribution to members of the Council and to Libraries. It would seem in fact, that it was treated in the manner usual in dealing with the printed catalogues of the museum. If, as in the case of the catalogue., a reserve of unbound copies was kept by theCsollege, this reserve hats been destroyed. Of the second issue, there is a copy in the following libraries: the British Museum; British Museum (Natural History); Royal College of Surgeons of England; Royal Society of Medicine; Geological Society of London; Edinburgh University; Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland; Army Medical Library, Washingtonf ; and the College of Physicians of Phila- delphia. For this information, I am for the most part indebted to Mr. W. R. Le Fanu, the Librarian of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, from whose invaluable " John Hunter; a list of his booksy (1946) I have derived it. In attempting to form any idea as to the originalitg of the ideas expressed by Hunter in his work on geology, it is essential to remember that, although published in 1859, it was actually written about 1790 and that mCiny of the observations were made thirty years before that date. This is a point that appears to be somewhat overlooked in Owen's account of the work, for in his third lecture of 1855, as published in " Essays and Observations " (l861), Owen tends rather to measure Hunter's knowledge of geology by the yard-stick of geological science as it existed at that time. Fortunately, Gillespie* has given an excellent summary of the ideas current regarding the origin of the earth and its living inhabitants at the time when Hunter X as jotting down his notes concerning extraneouc fossils, but this is done in the absence of any reference to Hunter's work. He says (p. 42): f Around 1790, the origin of fossils was no longer a matt osevrious debate. These curiosities were recognised as the residues ofliving creatures,

* " Genesis and Geology, a study in the relations of scientific thought, natural theology, and social opinion in Great Britain, 1790-1850." Harvard University Press. 1951. Harvard Historical Studies. No. LVrii. 232 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST but they were not the object of any particular attention, scientific or otherwise. Noah's flood probably accounted for their presence on the mountain tops, and there the matter rested. There was no question about the historical reality of the flood. When the history of the earth began to be considered geologically, it was simply assumed that a universal deluge must have wrought vast changes, and that it had been a primary agent in forming the present surface of the globe. Its occurrence was evidence that the Lord was a governor as well as a creator. The flood, a conceivable event, loomed larger and more clearly than the creation. Yet the notion of God's having brought the World into being in something like the fashion described in Genesis was not generally impugned. The accepted time span since creation was still around six thousand years, though there was beginning to be some doubt whether this was long enough. Whenever the question arose, however, it was supposed that this chronology might be referred to the deluge rather than to the origin of the World. In any case, the earth was allowed no very great antiquity. The antiquity of animal life depended on whether one pQstulated a single, all-sufficient act of creation or a series of special creations as the necessity arose for new forms of life. Both views were held, and the latter reserved mankind for a comparatively recent beginning. Animal and vegetable species, of course, were absolutely immutable and permanent, each created in its present image." Some idea of Hunter's distinction as a pioneer in the study of paleon- tology may be gained by contrasting Gillespie's statement that in 1790, fossils " were not the object of any particular attention, scientific or otherwise " with the great collection of fossils that had been scientifically studied by him even before this date. This collection is catalogued in four volumes published by the College between 1845 and 1856. It comprised 184 specimens of fossil plants, 2,092 invertebrates, 351 fishes and reptiles and 330 birds and mammals, and in addition Hunter had examined a large number of specimens, such as those collected by the Margrave of Anspach, contained in other collections*. As Owen says in his introduction to the catalogue of the " Fossil Reptilia and Pisces " (1854), " Hunter not only procured from the principal British localities characteristic examples of their cold-blooded vertebrate remains, but he had apparently spared neither pains nor expense in obtaining similar specimens from Maestricht, Solenhofen, Thuringia, Monte Bolca, Oeningen, Glaris, Malta and other continental localities celebrated for the richness of their fossiliferous strata." The preface to the catalogue of " Fossil Invertebrata "' (1856), states that " The proportions of the specimens which Hunter has obtained from foreign localities, noted for their fossiliferous strata, is greater in the *$ Although all Hunter's fossils had been completely catalogued by 1856 and the total number of specimens shown to be 2,957, the anonymous editor of the hurried publication of 1859 adds a footnote on page 2 to say " the number of Hunterian fossils in the collection amounted to 415." This is surely an astonishing statement to have been made by an official of the institution responsible for the care of Hunter's Museum. 233 F. WOOD JONES Invertebrate Classes than even in the Fossil Fishes. No pains appear to have been spared in exhibiting their organisation, and consequently rendering them as useful as possible in advancing this department of the Science of Animated Nature." Nor must we overlook the fact that in most cases the locality of each specimen was carefully noted and that wherever possible a portion of the matrix from which it was taken was preserved with it. It was also Hunter's habit to include in the same tray with the fossil specimen the similar part of the recent form with which it was most nearly akin. All this is obviously very definite evidence that Hunter had made a very profound study of a vast number of fossils, in relation both to their biological type and their stratigraphical importance nearly thirty years before William Smith had published his epoch-making " Strata identified by Organised Fossils," and more than forty years before the science had become sufficiently recognised as to receive the name of " Paleontology." The question naturally arises as to any possible published sources from which Hunter could have derived his remarkably accurate ideas concerning fossils and fossilisation. In 1757, Emanuel Mendes da Costa published " A Natural History of Fossils " and in 1778 he delivered a series of lectures on fossils in London. John Hunter was a subscriber to the puiblication and must have been acquainted with its contents. But da Costa's work was a treatise on what would now be termed Mineralogy, for he employed the word fossil as a synonym for mineral as was the usage of the time. To differentiate minerals, or " native fossils," from the remains of organised bodie., these latter were distin- guished, as Hunter distinguished them, as " Extraneous Fossils." It is certain that Hunter derived nothing from da Costa when giving his account of extraneous fossils. James Parkinson, Hunter's pupil, published his " Organic Remains of a Former World" from 1804 to 1811; but it was not until H. G. Brown published his "Lethoea Geognostica," some forty years after Hunter's death that a really definitive work on organic fossils was available to geoloaists. In addition to his great collection of fossils, Hunter had " formed a large and valuable collection of minerals." This collection, however, did not pass into the custody of the College of Surgeons after his death, for it was " sold with other effects, partly as having no connection with the Museum, and partly to defray the current expenses of his family and of the Museum." (Introduction. 1859 Publication, p. 4.) That the account of the Deluge given in Genesis described a real historical event that involved the universal flooding of the earth and the destruction of all such forms of life as were not included in the cargo of Noah's ark, was the general belief in 1790, is manifested in the geological works current at the time. Thomas Robinson (1694), John Woodward (1695), de Luc of Geneva (1779) and many others had written learned, but discursive, treatises to show that all the known facts of geology and paleontology could be invoked to prove the manifest truth of the Mosaic account. Hunter makes no reference to any of these authors and he 234 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST does not directly refute the conclusions of any one of them as an individual; nor does he impugn the veracity of the orthodox Mosaic account. His only reference to the matter is a particularly sane and guarded one; " History gives us no determined account of this change of the waters but as the Sacred History mentions the whole surface of the earth having been deluged with water, the natural historians have laid hold of this, and have conceived that it would account for the whole. Forty days' water overflowing the dry land could not have brought such quantities of sea-productions on its surface; nor can we suppose thence, taking all possible circumstances into consideration, that it remained long on the whole surface of the earth; therefore there was no time for their being fossilised; they could only have been left and exposed on the surface. But it would appear that the sea has more than once made its incursions at the same place; for the mixture of the land- and sea-productions now found on the land is a proof of at least two changes having taken place" (p. 10.). It might not appear remarkable that a man so distinguished for the independence of his opinions as was Hunter should have questioned the correctness of the accepted teaching that it was the Deluge of Noah that had brought the sea shells to the tops of mountains where they were found as fossils. But we must remember that (1784-1856), who was President of the Geological Society, gained his greatest scientific fame from the publication in 1833 of his " Reliquiae Diluvianae" which was devoted to demonstrating " the Phenomena attesting the action of a Universal Deluge." Buckland was an eminently respectable scientific man and a great pioneer in the study of paleontology. For his work on the existing geological evidences of the reality of the flood he was awarded the of the Royal Society and was rewarded by Robert Peel with the Deanery of Westminster in 1845. It was not until the publication of Charles Lyell's great " Principles of Geology " (1830- 1833) that the more progressive geologists were prepared to relegate the flood, as Hunter had done, to the position of a rather minor and local happening in the story of the earth and its inhabitants. As for the actual stages of the creation of the earth and the time occupied in the process, as detailed in the Mosaic account, Hunter was discreetly silent, for such imaginative studies found no place in his forthright method of dealing with concrete facts. He makes his position clear on the first page of his work where he says: " But it must be understood that this investigation has nothing to do with the original formation of the earth itself; for that must have been prior to the formation of the extraneous fossil." In exercising this diplomatic caution, Hunter differs from his forerunners, his contemporaries and many of his successors, to whom the defence of the Mosaic details of creation and an explaining- away of the Mosaic six-day time-table were major preoccupations. With regard to the larger time scale, involving the whole span of time that had elapsed since the formation of the earth, Hunter, in the lost first draft of 235 F. WOOD JONES his work, evidently showed his typical disregard for accepted opinion without even attempting to indicate that his views were widely at variance with those generally current. The biblical chronology determined by James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh (1581-1656), which is still the standard adopted in editions of the English Bible, determined the age of the earth at some 4,000 to 6,000 years. Hunter evidently simply stated in his original draft that " many (extraneous fossils) retain their form for many thousand centuries" (p. 3. Printed Volume). Rennell, in com- menting on the manuscript submitted to him, advised Hunter to be more cautious in expressing such ideas, and he wrote to him as follows: " This leads me to remark that you have used the term' many thousand centuries,' which brings us almost to the yogues of the Hindoos. Now, although I have no quarrel with any opinions relating to the antiquity of the Globe, yet there are a description of persons, very numerous and very respectable in every point but their pardonable superstitions, who will dislike any mention of a specific period that ascends beyond 6,000 years; I would therefore, with submission, qualify the expression by many thousand 'years ' instead of ' centuries.' " We have already noted the fact that in both the existing manuscripts Hunter has made this change and it is only by the unwarranted alteration of the text by the editor of the printed work that the word " centuries " has been wrongly reinstated. It is to be noticed that in the introduction to the printed volume the editor guarantees it to be " a verbatim copy of the manuscript presented to the Board of Curators." But even if Hunter did bow to orthodoxy to the extent of altering the wording on the advice of Rennell when the final manuscripts were prepared, it is quite evident that his ideas as to the immensity of time occupied in the accomplishment of geological processes remained unaltered. It was simply a question of making his statements sufficiently indefinite as to avoid criticism. For instance (p 46) he writes: "What number of thouwands of years this would take, or how often this has happened, I will not pretend to say." Indeed, Hunter was not alone in his day in making demands on time exceeding the narrow limits of orthodox chronology. G. H. Toulmin is the only writer on geology from whom Hunter makes any quotation in his works. Toulmin was the author of a work entitled " The Antiquity and Duration of the World." published in 1780, and he speak, of " an infinite succession of time " (p. 54) and a " vast succession of ages" (p. 58) in a way that seems to indicate very definitely that he did not accept Ussher's chronology. There is no doubt that Gillespie is correct when he says that by 1790 " there was beginning to be some doubt whether this (6,000 years) was long enough." - As for postulating one all-sufficient act of creation of living things, it is quite obvious that Hunter realised that new forms had arisen as a continuous process during different periods of geological time. His expression that " very few fossils correspond with the recent, though 236 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST very similar, yet they may not be of different species, but only varieties" (p. 7) implies his conception of these changes, even if we do not fully appreciate the exact distinction between " species " and " varieties " as understood by Hunter. " That many are actually lost is, I think, plainly shown, by the remains of land-animals that are not now known" (p. 8) is the introduction to his clear statements regarding the extermination of forms of life during succeeding geological epochs. The only ambiguity involved is in his use of the word " creation," for he says of the new forms that have appeared: "If they are really different species, then we mu4t suppose the old are lost; therefore a new creation must have taken place " (p. 8). We can only judge by the tenor of Hunter's general attitude towards the teachings of Genesis as displayed in this work and, using this as a criterion, it would hardly seem that he implied a fresh creative act by an impersonified creator. Although, unlike most of his contemporaries, Hunter steadfastly refrained from making any speculations regarding the origin of the Earth, he did not hesitate to express ideas regarding its possible changes as a unit in the solar system. The fact that " as the Fossils now found in countries whose climate does not correspond with the climates now inhabitated by the recent" leads him " to suppose that there has been an alteration in the ecliptic" (p. 6). Again, on page 7, he says: " The change in the ecliptic would appear by the fossils and recent of the same species having changed countries respecting warmth." This idea is further elaborated, for he goes on to observe " that most countries have some of both vegetables and animals peculiar to themselves, although many vegetables and animals are common to everyone; and this pecu- liarity is more confined to latitude than longitude; therefore if we were to reason entirely from the present vegetables and animals on this g'obe, we should suppose that the vegetables and animals found in a fossil state in any latitude would correspond with the recent vegetable and animal of the same latitude; but we find this not to be universally the case in every vegetable and animal, although it is in some; this therefore leads to a supposition that not only the sea had shifted its position respecting the surface of the globe, but that the position of the poles respecting the sun had been altered, so as to have thrown different surfaces of the globe opposite to the sun, which might be the cause of the waters shifting " (p. 9). In 1780, Toulmin had also alluded to the question of the alteration of the Earth's axis, a phenomenon which, he says, " has of late been suspected" (Sect. 14, p. 138). Owen, in his comments on Hunter's " Observations,'" rather tends to underestimate the importance of his independent thoughts on this question, for he points out that both Newton and La Place had declared that there was no evidence that any change in the Earth's ecliptic had taken place and thereby he infers that Hunter was mistaken in this regard. He also called attention to Hunter's deductions concerning the elephant that " I suppose that this animal can only live in a warm climate" but 237 F. WOOD JONES that " the preserved bones of Elephants being almost universally found, is a proof of their having been either at one time, or at different periods, a very universal animal." From this he concludes that " as the Elephant is an animal of a warm climate, it could not be universal at the same time; nor could it be universal respecting the Globe at different periods, if the Globe in every respect had continued the same; for if the Globe continued stationary, so must the Elephant" (p. 10). Owen justly calls attention to the fact that in Hunter's time the specific differences between the Mammoth of Siberia and the existing elephants of Africa and Asia were not recognised. But this in no way invalidates Hunter's general thesis that it was evident that climatic conditions had changed profoundly during the progress of geological epochs and that this could be explained by the supposition that alterations of the polar axis of the Earth had taken place. It was not a question of quibbling about the specific characters of animals known as Elephants, but of facing the facts of the dramatic changes of climate which Hunter had correctly interpreted in his examination of the fossil, of successive phases of plant and animal life in past ages. Throughout the " Observations" a great deal of attention is given to the manner in which true fossilisation, as opposed to mere incrustation, is effected. In discussing this question, Hunter bases his arguments on the fundamental dictum that " Wherever we find extraneous fossils. the surrounding matrix was so disposed at the same time" (p. 10). Although today this may appear to be an almost commonplace observa- tion, yet we must remember that it forms the basis of the whole of paleontological science and, as Owen said, it had never been laid down so definitely by any geological writer prior to Hunter. It was not until 1816 that William Smith published his " Strata identified by organised fossils " and earned the posthumous title of " The Father of British Geology." Since the fossil is coeval with the matrix in which it is laid down, Hunter continues, " We are naturally led to water as the great agent in all these operations." Throughout the whole work, the import- ance of water, by the agency of mitter held both in suspension and in solution, as being the medium in which true fossilisation takes place, is emphasised: " as most of the extraneous fossils we find are the remains of sea animals, it becomes the basis of our argument that the super- ficial native fossils were formed or accumulated at the bottom of the water " (p. 8). On page 33 he sums up these remarks by saying: " This conducts us to bodies of water, but more particularly the sea, as the greatest fossilizer, being the greatest body of water." But he had still to account for the fossilisation of the remains of terrestrial forms of life and here again he insists that the presence of water is the most important factor. " Extraneous fossils, as they are the remains of either vegetables or animals that inhabit the surface of the Earth, we must suppose, are formed either on its surface or they are formed within it, but at no great depth. Those that are formed on its surface must 238 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST have been covered with water; which may be in various ways, and will admit of variety; for some may be considered as intermediate, having been on the surface, and afterwards covered, either by the various earths deposited on them, or by their sinking into it, or placed in large sub- terraneous caves, upon which water, impregnated with various earths,. dropped" (p. 35). Throughout the work there is shown a very real appreciation of the enormous extent to which chance enters into the question of the immediate preservation and ultimate fossilisation of terrestrial animals and plants. This caution in accepting the fossil record as a true picture of the state of development of land-living forms of life in any particular geological period is hardly met with in the writings of any other paleontologist until the publication of the first edition of Charles Lyell's great " Principles of Geology" in 1830. On page 149 of the first volume, Lyell says: " As all are agreed that the ancient strata in question were subaqueous, and for the most part submarine, from what data, we may ask, do naturalists infer the non-existence or even the rarity of warm-blooded quadrupeds in the earlier stages." This is quite in keeping with Hunter's line of reasoning; and Lyell's statement: " Besides, it must not be forgotten, that all the animals which occur in subaqueous deposits are such as frequent marshes, rivers or the borders of lakes, as the rhinoceros, tapir, hippopotamus, ox, deer, pig and others. On the other hand, species which live in trees are extremely rare in the fossil state" (Vol. I, pp. 152-3) is paralleled by many of Hunter's observations. Later on, Hunter remarks: " and I believe it may be observed in general, that fos il bones of land-,nimals or birds are commonly found in such deposited material-, as gravel, sand, clay, etc.; and I think, from the fore-going position of the accumulation of such matter, a good reason may be a-signed for this. Gravel, or sand is, I believe, always brought into heaps along the shore " (p. 37). The same facts are again stated in many other passages later in the work. On page 42 he states: " Thus those (animals) that are constantly in the sea, as fish, but particularly shell-fish, whose shells are more durable than even bones, and the Cetaceous, ought to be the most common; the Amphibia* the next, and the land animals the fewest of all. If this is a just idea, then we should find fossils of the different classes in this proportion; and I believe we do, which is a collateral proof that the fossils are principally formed in the sea." It is quite obvious that Hunter realised the enormous number of marine, aquatic and " amphibious " animals represented as fossils compared with the sparse remains of thoroughly terrestrial forms; but this fact did not lead him to suppose that terrestrial forms had necessarily been absent or even rare at the time. It is also apparent that Lyell was impres'ed by the same circumstances and interpreted them just as Hunter had done. But Lyell only entertained his cautions until he was con- * By this term, Hunter means any animals leading a partly aquatic and partly terrestrial life. 239 F. WOOD JONES verted to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and, when the 10th edition of the " Principles" was published in 1866, the chapter in which they appeared was entirely re-written. But although Lyell, like practically all modern paleontologists, appears to have abandoned any doubts begot of a consideration of the relative chances of preservation of aquatic and terrestrial forms, Hunter retained his to the end. Quite evidently, he did not believe that because fossils of marine animals were so abundant and those of terrestrial forms so comparatively rare this was a condition necessarily prevailing in the world of living things at the time. Marine fossils were abundant because the animals happened to live in the sea and so were more readily preserved and not because they were necessarily more numerous or more early evtablished than terrestrial forms. Hunter was well aware that changes had taken place in the flora and fauna during geological times. He was acquainted with the phenomena of the extinction of certain forms of life and the appearance of new o0nes. But he gives no hint that he imagined these changes to be progressive from " lower " to " higher" or that marine and aquatic life antedated the development of a terrestrial flora and fauna. One other caution con- cerning the intepretation of the record of the terrestrial rocks as giving a true picture of the state of development of living things at any particular epoch, was shared by both Hunter and LyelI, although it seems to play no great part in the principles of modern paleontology. All through the work, Hunter devotes great attention to the question of changes in the distribution of land and water. His argument is that since so many marine fossils are present over wide areas of land, it is possible that many fossils of land animals are hidden from us by being beneath what is now the sea. "As the fossils of the sea, or water animals, can now only be found upon land, it is a proof that the sea was once there, and from this alone we may presume that where the sea now is, it was once land " . . . " then there will probably be formed fossils of land-animals which were then upon the land at the time" (p. 45). Hunter exercised considerably more caution in interpreting the record of the rocks than did the Darwinian evolutionists or their more recent successors. The contribution of the living coral hydroids towards building up the dry land of coral islands had long excited curiosity and was of course well known to Hunter (p. 28). But to him it was no unusual or freakish happening, for he realised that other forms of life had made contributions to the solid and " inorganic " constituents of the earth. The part played by vegetation in the formation of peat-bogs and in deposits of coal and allied " minerals " was familiar to him and he makes the truly remarkable statement: " But many animals have parts composed of two substances; one, animal matter which is perishable in itself, as above described; the other an earth, being the same as that which composed a part of the globe, is not perishable as matter, that it is supposed to compose a large portion of the Globe itself, being indebted to animals for it." Here Hunter approaches a modern and, unfortunately, still a somewhat unorthodox 240 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST point of view that the inanimate matter of " a large portion of the globe" has actually been formed through the agency of life.* It was not until 1839 that Ehrenberg proved that the chalk, which accounted for such vast masses of the Earth's surface, was formed by the myriad remains of marine foraminifera. In Hunter's time such an origin had never even been dreamed of and yet he makes some very shrewd observations on the formation of chalk. He calls attention to the fact that matter suspended in the waters of a river is deposited in regular succession as the river passes from an inland torrent to a flowing stream and, finally, to a sluggish estuary and to the sea. " If we were to trace the mould on from an inland country towards the sea, in the course of a river, we might find the following appearances; gravel; gravel and sand; sand; sand and clay, and last only clay, which will be carried more or less some way into the sea" (p. 20), where it may become mixed with chalk. But as for the formation of the chalk with which it becomes mixed, he says: " it would rather appear to have taken place in the sea itself." Concerning the formation of another constituent of the Earth's surface, Hunter showed an insight that is truly remarkable. It had always been assumed that the massive hardness of granite formations was a guarantee of their being the very basis of the Earth's crust upon which the stratified rocks had been subsequently laid down. De Luc, in 1779, wrote exhaustively on " primordial granitic structures " and expressed the belief in the basal nature of granite as the ancient foundation of the crust of the Earth that remained current for so long. Hunter, on the other hand, considered this thegis as being by no means proved. He notes how fossils should be found in " every known substance"; but he re- marks that " they are not; for none have yet been found in granite. Probably no cause can be assigned to this, although general opinions have been formed, such as granite being the original matter prior to vegetable or animal ; which may be probable, although we have no reason to suppose that the formation of granite is different from all others" (p. 5). Later he returns to the same subject, and on p. 45 he says: "We find that several of the elements of the granite contain a portion of calcareous earth as a constituent element " and previously he has noted that " a great part of the calcareous earth is undoubtedly of animal origin." We must turn to Lyell (1838) for a definitive pronouncement: " It is not true, as was formerly supposed, that all granite, together with the crystalline or metamorphic strata, were first formed, and therefore entitled to be called " primitive" and that the aqueous and volcanic rocks were after- wards superimposed, and should, therefore, rank as secondary in order of time" (p. 20-21). Hunter's experience in the field did not furnish him with an instance to which he could point as demonstrating the presence of granite lying above the fossiliferous beds of sedimentary rocks. That discovery was left for Von Buch (1809) to make in the vicinity of Christiana

* On this subject, see: Wilfred Branfield. " Continuous Creation." London. 1950. 241 F. WOOD JONES and for Raumer and Engelhardt (1811) to confirm in the Harz Mountains: but their findings proved far more disturbing to the geologists of the first decade of the nineteenth century than they would have done to Hunter. That Vulcanism has played its part in producing certain changes in the Earth's surface had naturally forced itself on the attention of geologists from very early times. Toulmin, in 1780, had given good accountc of the changes produced by various earthquakes recorded in history (p. 126) and Father della Torre, in 1755, compiled a complete record of the activities of Vesuvius from A.D. 79 until the middle of the eighteenth century. Hunter discusses the action of vulcanism in " raising up con- siderable extent of the surface of the earth which is already formed, either raising up mountains on its surface or islands " But as a factor in pro- ducing the more regular and more universal changes in terrestrial topo- graphy, he evidently considered it as secondary to the other forces that he discusses. He dismisses the question by saying of vulcanism that " This may answer some material purpose in the natural oeconomy of the earth, but it does not appear so systematic-not so much a general principle" (p. 18). It was to the agency of water that Hunter attributed the major changes that had taken place and were still taking place in the surface structure of the Earth. " The motion of waters is what we may consider as the regular system of the world; the sea the great part, the lakes and rivers the lesser; each formed out of and forming the other " (p. 11). He gives numerous instances of the encroachment of the sea upon the land and again of its retreat so that land is formed at the expense of the sea. He discusses the various courses taken by rivers according to their gradient and the nature of the terrain through which they flow, and he concludes that " it would appear that the motion of the waters in all their modes, with the power of solution, appear to be the regulators of the formation of the surface of the globe " (p. 22). He applied these general principles with wonderful insight to the physiography of certain areas with which he was familiar. Of the Thames valley, he says: " Probably the whole flat tract of the River Thames, between its lateral hills, was an arm of the sea; and as the German Ocean became shallower, it was gradually reduced to a river; and the composition of this tract of land, for an immense depth, would show it a gravel, a sand and a clay, with fossil shells in the clay 200 or 300 feet deep, all deposited when it was an arm of the sea, and above which are found the bones of land animals, where it has been shallow" (p. 15). This is surely a striking instance of accurate observation and correct deduction applied to topographical features with which he was familiar and it is the more remarkable in that it was written before 1790. But ar a matter of fact, it was, even at that time, only the application of a line of reasoning that had shaped his ideas upon the question of the advance and retreat of the seas in relation to land surface, at least 30 years previously. His observations on " the extensive flat tract of land in Portugal called Alentejo " (p. 16) must have been made 242 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST when he was in that country as an Army surgeon in 1762. He observes that there are clear evidences " of the sea having once covered this tract, and afterwards having left it gradually." It must be remembered that when Hunter was in Portugal he was discharging his duties as a military surgeon and was carrying out those fundamental observations that went to the making of his work " On the Blood, Inflammation and Gun-shot Wounds," that is a part of the history of surgery. He was also making researches on the power of hearing of fishes and on the regeneration of the tails of lizards; and yet his active mind directed his attention to this " vast extent of flat country going to Portalegra," on which he found clear evidence of the advance and the retreat of the sea in former times. The knowledge that he had gained from observations on the physiography of areas with which he was familiar, he applied with marked success to places which he had never actually visited. On the topography of Holland and of Touraine he contributes observations that have since been abun- dantly verified ; and concerning the deposition in, and changes of course of the Ganges, the Nile, the Mississippi, the Scheldt, the Rhine and the Maese he shows an equally clear insight. It is not possible to enumerate all of even the most impressive instances in which Hunter displays his vast knowledge of physiography of various parts of the world or to detail the astonishingly accurate deductions that he drew from them. One more instance of the almost prophetic nature of his conclusions must suffice. He is concerned not only with the formation of terrestrial features but he ventures upon speculations regarding submarine topography. His statement is as fol- lows: "Alterations on the shores are taking place from the sea having a regular direction of its course running on one side of its shore in some places, carrying into its mass the land, and losing on another, by depositing its materials there. So far these operations appear to have affected the visible land. But as the sea itself has regular motions, we can easily con- ceive that some regular effect is going on at its bottom, in disposing of the materials of the land which were carried into it, to be disposed of according to their natures; for I can easily suppose that a direction can be given by the motion of the waters to the formation of a mountain, as we see given to driving snow or sand by the wind " (p. 17). It was not until the deep-sea investigations carried out by the " Challenger " (1872-76) that the existence of the elongated, submarine mountain chains, formed by material deposited from the water, and shaped " by the motion of the waters" as banks of snow or drifts of sand are shaped by the wind, was verified. Without attempting any further analysis of this remarkable work, we may conclude with quoting the summary as written by Owen in 1861: "And now, in conclusion, to sum up the general principles which Hunter recognised as having been operative in modifying and producing the present condition of the surface of our planet, and in introducing and preserving the evidences of organised beings therein found: first, he exemplified the effects of running water, as in valleys and river-courses; secondly, the deposition of the matters so transported to the sea, noting 243 19 F. WOOD JONES the different distances to which such transported matters would be spread over the sea-bottom, according to their size and other physical characters; thirdly, the erosive action of the sea on coasts, as moved by tides, currents and winds ; fourthly, the power and mode of operation of a retiring sea on a rising land; fifthly, igneous expansive force and volcanic eruptions; and sixthly, deposits through animals or organic agency " (Vol. I., p. 331). Such may be taken as an accurate, if somewhat colourless, ertimate of Hunter's contributions to geological science: but accurate though it is, it hardly reflects the genius that inspired Hunter in the composition of the work. The period from 1790 to 1820 is termed by Von Zittel " The Heroic Age of Geology." It was the period during which the Neptunist followers of Abraham Gottlob Werner (1750-1817) contested with the Vulcanists, inspired by the work of James Hutton (1726-1797), concerning the roles that water and fire had played respectively in the primary stages of earth- building. Later in the period, the advocates of the Catastrophic School, mainly the followers of Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), held sway and they only capitulated to the Uniformitarians who were the disciples of Charles Lyell when the Heroic Age was passed. Hunter was none of these things: he may truly be said to have had a Heroic Age of Geology all to himself. He fully appreciated the action of water in producing changes of the Earth's surface; but he was no Neptunist. He realised the action of earthquakes and of volcanoes but was no Vulcanist. He wrote with authority on the extinctions of animals and of great changes in terrestrial topography and climate, but no Catastrophist may claim him as an adherent. He is more nearly allied in his outlook on geological changes with the Uniformitarians: but they had birth only in 1830- after the close of the " Heroic Period." Hunter was' indeed the Father of Geology and Paleontology, unrecognised though he was by his con- temporaries or his successors. Perhaps the long-established custom of concentrating attention on the attainments of John Hunter as a practitioner of the surgeon's art has tended to lessen our realisation of his great intellectual gifts. To proclaim biennially only his surgical triumphs is to belittle his greatness as a scientific man; for there never was a man who, earning his living by the practice of surgery, was so much more than a surgeon as John Hunter. The more important geological writings published prior to 1790: 1. STENO, Nikolaus (Stenson). "De solido intra solidum naturaliter contento." 1669. An original work that recognised stratographical succession and subsequent displacements of strata by " local crust inthrow." 2. BURNET, Thomas. " Sacred Theory of the Earth." 1681. A work published to show the truth of the Mosaic account. Conclusions later revoked by author who lost his appointment at court as a consequence. 3. ROBINSON, The Revd. Thomas (Rector of Onsley). "The Anatomy of the Earth." 1694. A fanciful work based on a comparison of the Earth to a large animal. 4. WOODWARD, John. " The Natural History of the Earth." 1695. A curious and discursive defence of the Mosaic teaching to which a reply was made by John Arbuthnott in 1697. 244 JOHN HUNTER AS A GEOLOGIST 5. WHISTON, William. " Theory of the Earth." 1697. A speculative and fanciful work based on Genesis. 6. HOOKE, Robert (1635-1703) " Opera posthuma." Ed. by Richard Waller. 1705. Realised the nature of fossils and deduced from them changes in climate. Relied largely on Vulcanism to account for effecting transport of marine fossils to elevated positions. 7. DE MAILLET. " Telliamed " Written 1715-16. Published 1748. An enlightened exposition of Neptunist implications. Understood the nature of fossils, the rise and fall of sea level, sedimentation, &c. 8. DA COSTA, Emanuel Mendes. " A Natural History of Fossils." 1757. A work on mineralogy. 9. DE Luc, J. A. " Lettres physiques et morales sur l'histoire de la terre et de l'homme." 1779. Five Vols. A discursive work upholding the Mosaic tradition. 10. TOULMIN, G. H. " The Antiquity and Duration of the World." 1780. An enlightened work that makes no appeal to the traditional teaching of Genesis. l I. DOUGLAS, James. " A Dissertation on the Antiquity of the Earth." 1785. Realises great duration of time and does not think " the account of the Deluge in Holy Writ " accounts for the disposition of all fossils. References given by Hunter in his " Observations and Reflections on Geology ": Page 9 Rome de L'Isle " Crystallographie " Vol. II, p. 608. 14 Toulmin, G. H. "Antiquity of the World." 2nd Ed. 1783. Several references. 15 Dr. Nott of Bristol. Account of the Baths of Pisa, p. 10. 22 The Rev. Dr. Michel, F.R.S. No work or page mentioned. 40 Captain Paterson. " A Narrative of Four Journeys into the country of the Hottentots and Caffraria in the years 1777-1779." On fossil wood. 43 Edmund Rack. Letter of 1784 reproduced. 50 Pallas. Coxe's translation of " Travels into Russia." Vol. II. p. 131. 52 J. Hall. Letter of 1785 reproduced. Also: p. 13. " The Abbe Man "? Work. On the winding course of rivers.

APPOINTMENT OF FELLOWS AND MEMBERS TO CONSULTANT POSTS H. R. BLADES, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Consultant Anaesthetist to St. D.A. Leonard's and St. Matthew's Hospitals. W. A. HAMER, F.R.C.S. Consultant Surgeon to S. E. Essex Group of Hospitals. C. C. LACK, M.A., D.P.M., M.R.C.S., Psychiatrist to King Edward VII L.R.C.P. Hospital, Windsor. C. D'A. LAIDLAW, F.R.C.S. Registrar in General Surgery to Birmingham (Dudley Road) Group of Hospitals. D. MACKINNON, M.D., M.R.C.S., Consultant Pathologist to Merthyr and L.R.C.P. Aberdare H.M.C. D. WALKER, F.R.C.S. Assistant Orthopaedic Surgeon to Ashford Hospital. K. T. WEAVERS, M.D., M.R.C.S. Pathologist to Mount Vernon Hospital. R. B. C. WELSH, F.R.C.S. Senior Registrar in General Surgery to Stoke on Trent Group of Hospitals. J. E. WILSON, M.D., F.R.C.S. Consultant in Thoracic Surgery to Castle Hill Hospital, Hull. K. C. WYBAR, F.R.C.S. Ophthalmic Surgeon to National Temperance Hospital. 245 19-2