REPORT 
OF THE 
PLATH 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 8. 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 Railroad 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 [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 
