tons have been shipped to San Francisco and Portland. * * * Concerning the accurracy of the above account the present writer knows nothing. It is here given in the hope of gaining more information on the subject."
The above communication is obviously an admission of complete mystification upon the part of its writer. He has little doubt about the substance being beeswax; in fact, in a later note to the present writer he says that he had no doubt about it. Yet the facts regarding the way the wax is found, as reported to him, are absolutely incompatible with any credible occurrence of beeswax. It was simply a matter requiring more information and the article is virtually an appeal for such.
Two articles were almost immediately published in Science in response to this appeal. The first was from Judge J. Wickersham, of Tacoma, Washington, who shows by reference to the writings of Brooks, Davidson, and Davis that many shipwrecks of Oriental vessels actually have occurred upon American shores and that therefore a wreck as the source of the wax was at any rate within the limits of possibility. He also calls attention to an error made in the information to Mr. Merrill regarding the amount of wax that had been recovered— no such quantities as those mentioned were ever found.
The second article was from the pen of C. D. Hiscox, of New York. It is a little peculiar in that it leaves the reader with a strong doubt about its writer ever having even seen a sample of Nehalem wax. There is given a description, to be sure, which would apply equally well to true beeswax, Nehalem wax, or ozokerite, but from the language of the article it is impossible to say which was meant. For the rest the author evidently simply consulted a dictionary and reproduced a lot of statistics for ozokerite. Although this article is often cited as an authority in discussions of Nehalem wax such citation is not justified for the reason that there is not to be found in it a single significant statement for which there is any proof.
