254 TRANS. ST. LOUIS ACAD. SCIENCE. 



in the Trans, of the Acad, of Sci. of St. Louis, vol. i. pp. 113 & 

 309. As regards priority there cannot be any doubt. 



Mr. Meek also claims that Shumard's description is -'111110-11 

 better, and with a correct knowledge of the affinities of the shell." 

 At the same time, Mr. Meek carefully avoids saying a single word 

 about drawings. Dr. Shumard's descriptions are -without figures ; 

 I give four different views of a very line specimen, and, I may 

 add. good figures, well drawn by the artist. Besides, I have so 

 well recognized "the affinities of the shell," that I say. "This spe- 

 cies resembles much the Terebratula radialls Phillips." Mr. 

 Meek repeats my opinion almost verbatim, saying, "Specifically, 

 this form is related to Retzia radialls Phillips." However, that 

 quotation is inexact, for Phillips does not call it Retzia but Te- 

 rebratula; and his description is even shorter than mine, for he 

 describes it in half a line, while I give two full lines. By the way. 

 Dr. Shumard did not recognize the affinities with Phillips's spe- 

 cies. Of course. Mr. Meek has a perfect right to prefer Dr. Shu- 

 mard's description and to use the generic name Retzia, just as 

 Prof. Derby prefers the generic name E timet r I a, and Phillips 

 and I the well-known name Terebratula. Every one knows that 

 genera are not natural sections, but merely convenient groups for 

 the classification of species which do not differ materially ; and 

 that no two palaeontologists, or zoologists, agree on genera, is 

 a matter of notoriety. I am far from attaching any importance 

 whatever to the almost innumerable genera which have been 

 launched during the last twenty years among the Brachlopoda. 



Mr. Meek has not confined his changing of names to the Tere- 

 bratula Mormonii. and has done the same without explanation 

 for Orthls Pecosll, which he calls O. carbonarla; Terebratula 

 Uta, which for him is Rhynch. Osagensts, etc. This putting 

 aside the date of publication, figures of fossils, and descriptions, is 

 to say the least, a very severe attack against the right of priority. 



In regard to the "Final Report of the U. S. Geol. Surv. of Ne- 

 braska," (Washington, Svo. 1872,) my name occupies so promi- 

 nent a place in the criticisms of Mr. Meek that I will say nothing, 

 letting my observations and Prof. Geinitz's descriptions of the 

 fossils stand on their own value. But everybody will be struck 

 with the curious discrepancy between the opinions of Mr. Meek 

 and Mr. Hayden, both of whom agree, in the text, that tne Per- 



