No. 3.] BILLINGS — ON THE TACONIC CONTROVERSY. 315 



possible to assert positively that they were not, what they ap- 

 peared to be, of the age of the Hudson River formation. The 

 attitude of the strata, together with their numerous disturbances, 

 might be exphiined physically, so as to meet either theory. If, 

 for instanc3, the trilobites of Vermont and Point Levis, had 

 turned out to be of the asre of the fauna of the" Hudson River 

 group, the rocks would be to this day called Hudson River. 

 There is no appnrent physical arrangement to contradict this 

 view, but rather to support it. I do not consider that originally 

 either the physical geologists, or the paleontologists, were much 

 to blame. With regard to the first, when a geologist finds one 

 rock overlying another, he is obliged to accept that as the natural 

 arrangement. Then as to the fossils, with :ill our increased 

 knowledge, I doubt that any good paleontologist of the present 

 day, would feel himself justified in deciding against physical ap- 

 pearances, on the few imperfect specimens figured in 1847, on pi. 

 67, Pal. N. Y., vol. I. Be this as it may the object of this note 

 is to show that while the error originated in New York, it was 

 corrected by the Geological Survey of Canada. Dr. Hunt, in 

 his published Address to the American Association, in August last, 

 indirectly associates Prof. Hall with me in the rectification of the 

 mistake, whereas neither Prof. Hall nor Dr. Hunt contributed any 

 aid whatever, but on the contrary, opposed the change that has 

 been made to the utmost. In this paper I desire simply to claim 

 what belongs to myself, and to do justice to some others, who 

 assisted in the work. I shall discuss the subject under the 

 following heads : 



1. — The Vermont Trilohites, 



In 1859, I had some correspondence with Col. E. Jewett, 

 then residing at Albany, N.Y., on the subject of an exchange of 

 fossils. This gentleman is widely known for the extensive col- 

 lections he has made, and I have also found him to be a good 

 sound geologist, although he has never published much on the 

 science. It appears that, during the numerous excursions he had 

 made over the disputed territory, he had arrived at the conclu- 

 sion from his own observations that Dr. Emmons was, upon the 

 whole, correct in his views. He had, on several occasions, urged 

 me to take the matter up and investigate it, but this I could not 

 do for want both of time and of facts. On the 5th of April, 

 1859, he wrote me a letter, in which he gave an account of 



