Animal Locomotion

Abstract

YOUR reviewer resorts to very strong language, without, it appears tome, justifying his procedure. In reviewing my volume he exclaims, “Imagine our disappointment on finding that, instead of the work being by the hand of a master, its author is deficient in the knowledge of the first principles of physics, and of the undoubted meaning of some of the most simple terms employed in the science; his argument, if it may be so called, being but little more than a long series of vague and fanciful analogies, incorrectly stated physical facts, and untenable theories.” … “We must say that we expected better things of Dr. Pettigrew, and regret that he has not, before now, learned that there are errors in his methods and results that cannot be tolerated by a thinking public, which prefers accurate reasoning rather than dogmatic statement, and well-grounded fact to fanciful analogy” (NATURE, vol. ix. p. 221). One would naturally have expected after such announcements an exposure of false theories and a criticism of the nomenclature employed, but Mr. Garrod condescends upon neither. He takes refuge in general statements and implies what he does not attempt to prove.