REPORT 



OF THE 



STATE ZOOLOGIST 



FOR 1893 AND 1894. 



Shortly after the distribution of my first report a kindly criticism 

 of the brief reference to the early history of the survey was received 

 from a gentleman, who formerly was a resident of Minnesota and took 

 an active interest in the work of the survey. In accordance with the 

 assurance given to the critic I take this opportunity of correcting, so 

 far as possible, the feature which to him seems unjust. 



The statement taken exception to is the last sentence of the second 

 paragraph of the "General Introduction," reading as follows: "For 

 many years the Natural History Survey existed only in the wisely 

 formulated law, for which excellent and comprehensive law we owe 

 thanks to Dr. Wm. W. Folwell, who was president of the University 

 at that time." 



It is contended that the credit for the survey law is almost entirely 

 due to the Honorable John S. Pillsbury, and "that the truths of 

 history require that those who know the facts should demand that 

 credit be given where credit is due." It is particularly stated that 

 the Honorable A. J. Edgerton, now U. S. District Judge at Sioux 

 Falls, South Dakota, while Eailroad Commissioner of Minnesota, dis- 

 covered there was a balance of a grant of land to the state, called the 

 "Salt Land Grant," and suggested to the Honorable John S. Pillsbury, 

 then a senator from Hennepin county, that this so called salt land 

 ought to be set aside for the survey fund. The suggestion was taken 

 up and after considerable hard work the end was gained in "An act 

 to aid the geological and natural history survey of the state," approved 

 March 10, 1873. 



To this I reply: 1. There is no conflict between the bit of history 

 given by the critic and my statement, which alluded only to the orig- 

 inal draft of the law creating the survey. 2. My statement was based 



