acquired and wisely used is undoubtedly of considerable benefit
to mankind. But that it was necessary, in order to enable an
artist to know that hair grows on the human head, we had not
before supposed. Into such absurdities, oh Harry, does he run
who abandons his familiar scissors for the unaccustomed pen.

I will briefly refer to the letter of Rev. S.R. Calthrop in favor
of the statue theory. While it shows the scholarship of its author,
his thorough appreciation of artistic influences, and the wonderful
imitation of nature produced by the one who formed this figure, it
does not seem to me to go very far towards proving his position.
Starting off with the idea that many reasons may be given against
the theory of petrification, he commences with number one, and
then he stops; it is true he gives one other reason, but neglects
to number it; and the two reasons are--

First, that evidences of stratification appear on the body, thereby
assuming that they would not appear in a petrified body; and,
secondly, that the separate members of the body are not detached
from each other as they were in life, assuming also that this does
occur in cases of petrifaction.

Are these assumptions correct as matters of fact?

The evidence as to the existence of strata in this body is very
conflicting. A number of professional persons who visited this
figure on Saturday, and subjected it to close scrutiny with a
powerful magnifying glass, and who all, by the way, hold the
"statue theory," say there were no evidences of stratification in
the body; that what appears to be such is simply the difference