In 1922, Harry Fielding Reid, a founder of American seismology, encapsulated the American perspective on scientific method in a review of Wegener’s Origin of Continents and Oceans. “There have been many attempts to deduce the characteristics of the Earth from a hypothesis,” he wrote, “but they have all failed. There is the pentagonal system of Elie de Beaumont, the tetrahedral system of Green . . . [continental drift] is another of the same type.” The history of hypothetico-deductive reasoning in geology was a history of failure; progress was to be made another way. “Science has developed,” Reid concluded, “by the painstaking comparison of observations and, through close induction, by taking one short step backward to their cause; not by first guessing at the cause and then deducing the phenomena.” An obvious reading of Reid’s comment is that Wegener’s faulty methodology led him to faulty conclusions. No doubt Reid thought so. But another reading is the implicit suggestion that a different approach —a different presentation —might have elicited a more favorable response. Charles Schuchert’s comment that it was “wrong lor a stranger to the facts to generalize from them to other generalizations” suggested that if evidential support for drift could come from someone who was not a “stranger to the facts,” then Americans might be more disposed to entertain the theory. This thought had occurred a few years earlier to Reginald Daly and Frederick Wright. When Daly and Wright returned from South Africa in the autumn of 1922, each pondered the question of continental drift. Daly, whose proclivities ran to theory, developed a mechanical account of drift; Wright, an experimentalist, began to think about a possible test. The key empirical evidence was the alleged similarities between the Karroo formations in South Africa and age-equivalent rocks elsewhere in the world — evidence that had earlier motivated Suess’s idea of Gondwanaland and now supported Wegener’s theory of drift. But how similar were these rocks, really? Suess and Wegener had based their ideas on compilations of published literature; neither man had studied any of these rocks in person. In fact, there had never been a direct comparative study of the so-called Gondwana beds.