Some Furtlier Eemarhs upon the genus Anomalodonta. 281 



work, but ought rather to invite it. His reply, however, in the April 

 No. of the American Journal of Science aftid Arts, to the article, 

 which appeared in this Journal in October last, is so manifestly unjust, 

 not to say intentionally false, that its reproduction can have no value, 

 beyond the opportunity afforded for exposing his misrepresentations. 

 He says : 



"Mr. S. A. Miller, in a reply to my note on the above mentioned 

 genus, published in the October number (1874) of the Cincinnati 

 Journal of Science, endeavors to defend his substitution of the name 

 Anomalodonta for Meek's earlier name. This he does on the ground 

 (I) tliat Megaptera, having been previously used for a genus of whales, 

 could not stand ; (2) that although Mr. Meek had subsequently (but 

 previous to the publication of Mr. Miller's name) proposed to sub- 

 stitute for it the name 'Opidhojjtera, he did it only provisionally, and 

 had not Jiimself adopted it in the subsequently published Ohio Report ; 

 and (3) that neither Meek and Worthen jointly, nor Mr. Meek alone, 

 had fully defined the generic characters of their type. 



To one familiar with the article, in the October number of this 

 Journal, upon the genus Anomalodonta, the misrepresentations in the 

 foregoing paragraph are apparent, but as some, who will see this, have 

 not and will not see the former, it can only be proper to say, that 

 neither Meek and Worthen, nor Meek himself ever defined the genus Me- 

 gaptera or OpistJioptera. Meek and Worthen had a shell having all the 

 characters of an Ambonychia, so far as they could see, and they saw 

 the cardinal teeth as well as the exterior, but it had a wing unusually 

 prolonged. They named it Ambonychia, Casei, and suggested, that if 

 it should prove not to be a true Ambonychia, it be placed in a sub- 

 genus, for which they proposed the name Megaptera. Later Prof. 

 Meek said, that if this shell should prove to be the type of a sub-genus, 

 the name Opisthoptera might if desired be substituted instead of 3Ie- 

 gaptera. No character of generic or sub-generic value was defined or 

 suggested and consequently the names suggested were not applied to any- 

 thing. And furthermore it was quite fully shown, in the October 

 Number of this Journal, that Ambonychia Casei does not belong to the 

 genus Anomalodonta, but on the contrary belongs to the genus Ambony- 

 chia, where Meek and Worthen placed it, and has no characters sufficient 

 even to found a sub-genus— In other words it is an Ambonychia, simply 

 that and nothing more. I have not, therefore, attempted to substitute 

 the name Anomalodonta, for Meeks earlier name, but on the contrary, 

 if Megaptera or Opisthoptera could live, as generic or sub-generic terms, 

 they would not be in conflict with Anomalodonta, and when Prof C. 

 A. White, in a distant Journal publishes the statement, that I at- 

 tempted to substitute a name for a genus, already provided with one, 



