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 " much 

 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 xvithont figures ; 

 I give four difierent views of a very fine specimen, and, I may 

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

 well I'ecognized "the affinities of the shell," that [ say, "This spe- 

 cies resembles much the Terebratula radialis Phillips." Mr. 

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

 this form is related to Retzia radialis 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 coin-se. Mr. Meek has a perfect right to prefer Dr. Shu- 

 mard's description and to vise the generic name Retzia^ just as 

 Prof. Derby prefers the generic name Rumetria^ 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 difier materially ; and 

 that no two palceontologists, or zoologists, agree on g-enera^ is 

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

 w^hatever to the almost innumerable genera which have been 

 launched during the last twenty years among the Brachiopoda. 



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

 bratula Mormonii., and has done the same without explanation 

 for Orthis Pecosii^ which he calls O. carbonaria ; Terebratula 

 Uta, which for him is R/iynch. Osagensis, tie. This putting 

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

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



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 critici&msof 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 the Per- 



