SWALLOW — WEEK'S NOTES ON GEOLOGY OF KANSAS. 525 



specific name as often. In March, 1865, they call it tyjrus, in 

 May pelvis, and Nebrascensis in March of the same year. 



Thus, this poor fossil was graced with six — three generic 

 and three specific — names in the short space of five months. 

 We hope, therefore, our critics will excuse us if we do not 

 always get the very last, especially when it comes out after 

 our article is written. 



There are a few criticisms and little sophisms which may 

 require a passing notice. 



Dr. Hayden says: "In Prof. Swallow's former papers he 

 gives the thickness of the Upper and Lower Permian at 820 

 feet, and in the Report under review the thickness of the 

 same beds is given at 704 feet 1 inch." This discrepancy of 

 116 feet he is kind enough to account for, though not in the 

 right way ; but the "1 inch" troubles him. It may relieve 

 the Dr. to learn that his 820 feet was taken from Maj. 

 Hawn's section,* not mine, as he states; and that the "1 

 inch" was a natural result of the addition of the figures re- 

 presenting the thickness of all the strata, a simple sum in the 

 addition of duodecimals, and not " an ett'ort to be over exact." 



Messrs. Meek and Hayden doubt the accuracy of my iden- 

 tification of fossils, when I place Carboniferous, Permian, 

 Triassic, and Liassic species together in the same beds. But 

 I never placed such fossils together in the same beds; and 

 Messrs. Meek and Hayden made several mistakes, and 

 ignored sundry facts by me stated before they could get 

 them into that condition. They alone are responsible for 

 the unnatural position they have placed these fossils in. But 

 they have shown the Carboniferous and Permian species 

 great wanderers. Why not give the Triassic and Jurassic 

 the same privilege ? 



_ I am under many obligations to them for sanctioning my 

 views of the Triassic (?) formation. But it is to be regretted 

 that in summing up the Palaeontological evidence they 

 should, as they often do, misquote me and mistake the facts. 

 They say I "at first referred to this horizon a trilobate leaf." 

 But the fact is I simply said "it is the only fossil plant in 

 the collection belonging to the beds above the Permian." 

 The Cretaceous are above the Permian, and it may belong to 

 the Cretaceous. I never found it in place. Maj. Hawn lo- 

 cated it in No. 14(?) of the Triassic, (?) expressing a mere- 

 probability of a probability that it belonged to the Triassic 

 And that is all we have said about it. And yet they say. 



* It may assist Messrs. Meek and Hayden out of some of their troubles- 

 to be reminded that the materials and sections used in the papers of Maj. 

 Hawn and myself, in 1858, were collected and made by Maj. Hawn (see 

 Proc. Acad. Sci. St. Louis, vol. 1, p 175.) but what I used in my Re- 

 port were collected by myself and Maj. tJawn. 



