Many parties will also be aware that additional scientific
interest has been imparted to those wonderful remains in consequence
of their having been pronounced as petrified representatives of
genera of fishes, of which few other specimens are to be found,
and that upon no less important authority than the published conclusions
of M. Agassiz, the world-renowned Palaeontologist. From the opinion
of M. Agassiz, certain parties, no doubt eminent is their way,
have expressed a dissent, and among these are to be ranked Mr.
Hugh Miller, Dr. Fleming and Sir Philip Everton. The first named
of these gentlemen, well known as the Editor of the Witness newspaper,
and scarcely less celebrated as the author of a treatise on "The
Old Red Sandstone", and other geological works, maintains
that the opinion of the learned Swiss Palaeontologist has been
formed on imperfect specimens; and in an elaborate article which
appears in the "Witness" of Wednesday, the 24th ultimo
[July], he (at least we believe it is him) not only repeats that
argument, but proposes to submit the question of the accuracy
of the Ichthyological arrangement of these remains as a matter
of dispute between himself and Dr. Anderson for discussion at
the meeting of the British Association - which dispute he proposes
to submit, along with the specimens which the original judgment
was pronounced, to a committee of six members of that learned
Association now sitting in Edinburgh - two members of that arbitration
committee to be chosen by himself, two to be named by Dr. Anderson,
and the remaining two to be appointed by the Association.
Fifeshire Journal, 1 August 1850