The Knickerbocker criticized Hitchcock's first article on the tracks in the American Journal of Science, insinuating that the educated world had given him too much credit, because they were so impressed with his rise from poor beginnings.
The new red sandstone in the Connecticut Valley contains innumerable septaria and stria, often mistaken for impressions presenting the most fantastic figures and shapes, of which the Ornithichnites of the Professor probably compose one family . . . . The regularity and precision of many of these channels and ridges, is truly remarkable; but [an] accurate test . . . has never been able to detect any evidence of organized matter, and in the opinion of many of our ablest geologists there is none. . .
Aware of the disadvantages under which Professor Hitchcock early labored, admiring his determined resolution and indefatigable industry, and knowing that he possessed talent, the critics have ever viewed his works with partiality, until we fear that he gives himself more credit for accuracy, than he actually deserves, and that he is one of that small class who have been injured through excess of moderation. That this may serve him as a timely monition that the eye of the critic is upon him, and will expose the errors and fallacies of his favorite, and that it may cause him to give more heed to his composition, and to weigh more accurately his conclusions in science, is the object we desire to accomplish by this brief notice of his Ornithichnology.