By thus choosing to consider mountains as of two distinct kinds, one aquiform which is understood, and the other primordial which is not to be known, we supersede the necessity of reconciling a theory with many appearances in nature which otherwise might be extremely inconvenient to our explanation, if not inconsistent with our system.  Our author no doubt has thus relieved himself from a considerable difficulty in the philosophy of this earth, by saying here is a great part which is not to be explained.  But I would beg leave to observe, that this form of discussion, with regard to a physical subject, is but a mere confession of our ignorance, and has no tendency to clear up another part of the subject of which one treats, however it may impress us with a favourable opinion of the theorist, in allowing him all the candour of the acknowledgement.

The general result of the reasoning which we now have quoted, and what follows in his examination, seems to terminate in this; that there are various different compositions of mountains which this author cannot allow to be the production of the sea; but it is not upon account of the matter of which they are formed, or of the particular mixture and composition of those species of matter, of which the variety is almost indefinite.  According to this philosopher, the distinction that we are to make of those primordial and secondary competitions, consists in this, that the first are in such a shape and structure as cannot be conceived to be formed by subsidence in water.

M. de Saussure has carefully examined those same objects; and he seems inclined to think that they must have been the operation of the ocean; not in the common manner of depositing strata, but in some other way by crystallization.  The present theory supposes all those masses formed originally in the ordinary manner, by the deposits or subsidence of materials transported in the waters, and that those strata were afterwards changed by operations proper to the mineral regions.

But the subject of the present investigation goes farther, by inquiring if, in the operations of the globe, a primary and secondary class of bodies may be distinguished, so far as the one may have undergone the operations of the globe, or the vicissitudes of sea and land, oftener than the other, consequently must be anterior to the later productions both in time and operation, although the original of all those bodies be the same, and the operations of the earth, so far as we see in the effects, always proceed upon the same principles.  This is an extensive view of nature to which few have turned their thoughts.  But this is a subject to which the observations described by this author have evidently a reference.

In his 113th letter, he has given us a view of one of those parts of the earth that are proper to be examined in determining this question so important in the genealogy of land, although no ways concerned in altering the principles upon which nature in forming continents must proceed.