346 BULUiTIJS 109, UNITED STATES NATIONAL, MUSEUM. 



of Lower Silurian fossils. Do you thiuk it would have been judicious or de- 

 sirable to publish a work upon the paleontology of the State of New York^ 

 in which only this number of Lower Silurian fossils should have been given? 



5. There were less than 50 species in the same collections from Medina sand- 

 stone, Clinton group and Niagara group, being in each instance less than 

 one-sixth of the number published from these formations respectively in the 

 first and second volumes of the paleontology of New York. The same condi- 

 tion also existed in relation to the fossils of the lower Helderberg period 

 and Oriskauy sandstone, which are comprised in the third volume, now in 

 pi'ogress. What, in your opinion, would have been the estimation and the pres- 

 ent opinion of that portion of the public capable of judging of a work entitled 

 the " Paleontology of New York " which would have given some 50 or GO species 

 from each of the periods here mentioned; and would it have been creditr.ble 

 to either the author or to the State under whose patronage the work is pub- 

 lished? 



G. In the volumes of this work already published a few species of fossils 

 are inti-oduced from adjoining States into which the same geological formations 

 extended, and where they had been studied by the author with a view to bring 

 them into harmony with the system and nomenclature adopted in New York. 

 What is your opinion of the propriety and importance of such a course, and 

 how does it affect tlie value of these publications? 



7. Do you or do you not consider that New York has by this publication en- 

 hanced or sustained her claim to the nomenclature adopted in her geological 

 reports: and what would probably have been the result in reference to this 

 nomeclature, had a paleontology been published in that work, and without any 

 reference to the extension of the same formations, into other States, or their 

 Identification by fossil remains? 



8. Have you any means of knowing the opinion of other geologists or 

 naturalists in this country or in Europe in reference to the value and importance 

 of this work to American geology? 



9. It has been complained of that too many illustrations of each species 

 are given in the plates of this work. Save you had occasion to use the volumes 

 for the comparison of your species, and if so, have you often found superfluous 

 figures of species? 



10. Have you had an opportunity of examining the collections which have 

 been made during the progress of the work on the paleontology of New Y'^ork, 

 and what is your opinion of the same? 



11. With your knowledge and experience of the labor and expense of collect- 

 ing specimens for such a work, what would you estimate as the cost of making 

 the necessary collections for each volume of those published, or upon what foot- 

 ing would you consider it necessary to organize such a department, and what 

 time would be required with that organization to make the collections from the 

 entire areas occupied by the different formations embraced therein; and to com- 

 plete a volume of the work in the manner already done? 



12. With all the assistance I can employ in making collections, and with the 

 necessary field examinations to be made by myself, the sui)erintendence of 

 drawings, engravings, comparisons of species with others described in similar 

 works, writing descriptions, and superintending the printing of work. I have esti- 

 mated that four years is but a reasonable time to be allowed for each volume. 

 Will you express an opinion on this point? 



13. The proposition made by the commissioners having direction of the 

 department is that I fehall receive $2,500 when a volume is completed, and this 



