your published descriptions & posterior to those observed by Deane & Marsh.

In a return proof from D^r Deane there is no correction except of a date ––1835 instead of 1834. There is no remark upon M^r Marsh and I do not know who he is except that D^r D has written about him as a co-worker.

I am now more desirous than ever that you should furnish the remarks upon Deane & please put in figures on the top of the MS. the number of extra copies you would wish for yourself.

I remain as ever your sincere friend,

B Silliman

Prof Hitchcock

P.S. I have communicated your letter & this reply to our judicious friend Dana, and he suggests another course, that is, agreeably to your own inclination, that you should make your communication formally to D^r Mantell and he thinks it would be better for me to make it in my own name, you furnishing the materials, and if you desire it. D^r Mantell would then publish it in the English Journals. We both think that the statement should be calm, condensed & without any imputations on D^r M, D^r D or any one, but containing the facts of the claim. Should you take this course perhaps you would allow me to read it should there be occasion, & then send it to you for your reaction & it should in no case go without your full approval upon due consideration. My regards to M^rs Hitchcock & request her to accept Jacobs from me as it may amuse her & the young ladies. Of Jacobs I have no other knowledge than the book itself: it appears to me to be authentic, very probably dressed up for the public by a literary man as it is written very artfully & in a pleasing style. Pray what was the result of your Monday Corporation meeting?