Very much interested in your fossils, as shown in "Pop. Sci. Mo." But my interpretation, though it agrees as to incredulity for prevailing dogmas, is different. My notion is that it is all rubbish about a supposed Triassic period. Years ago I read Herbert Spencer's essay, "Illogical Geology", and geologic chronology has looked like a farce to me, ever since. I'd say that your fossils may be recent, because the rocks may have been of recent origin. Even coal, or coal sometimes, may be of recent origin. I have data of iron implements found in seams of coal.
See "Folklore", 21-184 — rocks in Ireland marked with footprints of a cow. For an account of sandstone, in which was embedded a stick, with a nail in it, see "Pop. Sci. News", 1884-41. Piece of quartz, with a nail in it — see London "Times", Dec. 24, 1851.
I think that your fossils are very interesting and valuable, not because they are old, but because they indicate that supposititiously ancient rocks may be recent. There are hosts of data, which, if collected, would destroy the dogmas of geology and paleontology. I think that space has been put upon a rack, by the astronomers, and time upon a rack, by the geologists, and that the stretching that they have done is outrageous, though humorous.
Thank you for "Pop. Sci. Mo." — a much livelier publication than it used to be.
39 Marchmont Street,