(H.) 



The preceding pages, entitled " Xotes on some new or imperfectly 

 known forms among the Brachiopoda," were printed in March, 1871, 

 as advance sheets of the 23d Keport on the iS^. Y. State Cabinet 

 of Nat. Hist., and reprinted in precisely the same form (except a single 

 typographical error) adding the explanation of plates, in March, 1872: 

 a number of copies were disti'ibuted immediately after the first-named 

 date. The question of publication has been raised bj Mr. Billings, and 

 the accompanying article is my reply. It was written to appear in 

 the June number of the American Journal of Science, but was deferred 

 till the August number. 



The C[uestion of priority of publication is one of small moment to 

 me, compared with the charge and insinuations, by Mr. Billings pub- 

 licly, and by the Director of the Canadian survey in a private letter, 

 that I had derived material from the collections of that survey to aid 

 in my determinations. This I have explicitly denied in my reply, and 

 I take this occasion to put upon record the fact that for more than ten 

 years past all collections Itorrowed hy Tne, and all sent in exchange^ w 

 received for laheliiig, or otherwise, have been taken in charge and 

 recorded by Mr. R. P. Whitfield, who has made up all the returns 

 durino' this time. 



... 



Tins course was originally adopted to prevent a recurrence if possible 

 of some annoyances of not very dissimilar nature to the present exam- 

 ple, or at least to have in such cases other evidence than my own testi- 

 mony, should it become necessary. 



[From the Amer. Jour, of Science and Arts for August, 1872.1 



REPLY TO A "NOTE ON A QUESTION OF PRIORITY."* 



By James Hall. 



In the April number of this Journal there is published an article 

 with the abov^e title, in wliich the autlior questions the fact of publica- 

 tion of a small pamphlet entitled " Notes on some new or imperfectly 

 known forms among the Brachiopoda." I perhaps owe to myself and 

 to the scientific public, a few words in reply. 



The pamplilet referred to was printed in March, 1871, and a number 

 (between twenty-five and thirty copies) delivered to me at that time. 

 The type was left standing, in order to print a larger number, to be 

 accompanied by a plate of figures then in progress, with descriptions of 

 the same. Of these copies, the greater part were distributed in the 



* By E. Billings, who has treated the same question, essentially in the same style 

 and manner, in two or more articles in the Canadian Naturalist. 



