May 26, 1893.] 



SCIENCE. 



283 



buttes. From the strata at Pyramid Mountain and other places 

 in the vicinity he collected a number of invertebrate fossils, two 

 of which he figured and described as Ostrea marshii and Oryplicea 

 dilatata, var. Tucumcari, Marcou, and referred them to the same 

 species as those described in Europe under the same names. 



The collections of Professor Marcou were placed, by order of 

 the Secretary of War, in the hands of W. P. Blake for description. 

 He dilfered entirely with Professor Marcou in his identification 

 of the fossils, and referred them to Ostrea siibovata, Shumard, and 

 Gryphcea pitcheri, Morton. Others engaged in the controversy, 

 which became very personal and bitter, and the wounds made by 

 the lances of the combatants have not healed to this day. 



The locality was not visited again by any geologist until, in 

 1888, Mr. R. T. Hill visited the place and made a short stay. He 

 visited it again in 1891 and made further observations. In 1891 

 I visited the locality, made many sections of the hills in the 

 vicinity, and collected a large number of fossils. This comprises 

 all the geological work in that immediate vicinity, so far as I am 

 informed. 



Professor Marcou referred the strata to the Triassic and Jurassic, 

 basing his conclusions as to the Jurassic upon the fossils found 

 there, which he claimed were identical with those found only in 

 the Jurassic of Europe. There is now no dispute about the cor- 

 rectness of his reference of the lower beds to the Triassic. 



After Mr. R. T. Hill's first visit he published a paper, in which 

 he said he was inclined to confirm Marcou's reference of the upper 

 beds to the Jurassic After his second visit he again confirmed 

 Marcou's reference; but upon further consideration he concluded 

 that the beds belonged to the Cretaceous. 



When I visited the place I took time to collect fossils and study 

 the stratigraphy and lithological character of the several parts of 

 the formation, and the result was that I could not agree with 

 either of my predecessors I found evidence there of the ex- 

 istence of the Triassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary. Since the pub- 

 lication of Mr. Hill's latest paper there is no disagreement between 

 us. Professor Marcou still contends for the correctness of his 

 reference of the upper beds to the Jurassic. 



The evidence of the Cretaceous age of the middle part of the 

 strata is based upon the fossils I found in the beds, associated 

 with those from the same place found by Marcou. The following 

 is a list of the fossils found by me:^ 



Oryphcea dilatata, var. Tucumcari Marcou; Ostrea marshii, as 

 determined by Marcou; bat in reality Ostrea subovata, Shumard; 

 Gryphcea pitcheri, Morton; Exogyra texana, Roemer; Ostrea quad- 

 riplicata, Shumard ; Trigonia emoryi, Con. ; Cardium hillanium. 

 Sow. ; Cytheria leonensis. Con. ; and a single leaf of a dycotyle- 

 donous plant, which I described and figured under the name 

 Sterculia Drakei. 



It will be apparent to everyone acquainted with the fossils of 

 the Cretaceous that those enumerated belong only to Cretaceous 

 strata, and, if taken from the beds of the Tucumcari region and 

 correctly determined, the conclusion that the beds are Cretaceous 

 vi'ould be inevitable. 



Professor Marcou, therefore, seeing this, in reviewing my pub- 

 lication, endeavors to avoid the conclusion by saying that either 

 the determinations of the fossils found by me were incorrect or 

 that they did not come from that locality, and suggests that the 

 labels on my packages were loosely put on and became mixed 

 with collections made elsewhere; and on this flimsy subterfuge 

 (to give it no harder name) still insists on the correctness of his 

 reference to the Jurassic. 



A simple recital of the circumstances attending the collection, 

 shipment, and determination of the fossils under consideration 

 will be sufficient to satisfy any reasonable mind on both doubted 

 points, especially in the absence of any motive for deception on 

 my part. The facts are that for more than a month prior to the 

 collection of the fossils in dispute we had not collected a single 

 one from any Cretaceous bed, and every package previously col- 

 lected had been shipped to the museum. Those collected at 

 Tucumcari were shipped overland to Las Vegas, New Mexico, 

 were delayed there for several months, and did not arrive at 

 Austin until every package collected from other localities had 

 been opened and put in the cases. When the boxes containing 



the Tucumcari collections arrived, instead of opening them as the 

 other collections were in the storage room, I bad them taken to 

 my private room, opened them myself, and put ihem in a separate 

 case, where they are now with the labels originally placed on 

 them in the field. There were at least fifty packages of these 

 fossils, and each package had two labels attached, so that it is 

 utterly impossible for them to have become mixed by accident or 

 oai'elessness. 



Again, myself and my assistants discussed the fossils in the 

 field as we picked them up, and our note-books show that we then 

 determined them as they are now designated. There can there- 

 fore be no reason for supposing that the fossils did not come from 

 that locality, notwithstanding Professor Marcou says that be did 

 not find such fossils there, as if that fact could justify him in say- 

 ing another explorer did not. Marcou travelled rapidly through 

 the country, made a section at one place, and devoted six hours 

 to the examination of the strata at that precise locality, while I 

 travelled at my leisure, and took all the time necessary to collect 

 the fossils. 



He says be has seen the collection of Professor A. Hyatt made 

 in that vicinity, and that there are none of the fossils enumerated 

 by me in his collection. Professor Hyatt has never said that he 

 collected fossils from that locality, and so far as I know he never 

 did; but even if he had, would that be a reason for concluding 

 that another person could not find other fossils ? Professor Hyatt 

 has written no paper on that region. 



As to the correctness of the determination of the fossils, I took 

 every precaution to prevent any mistake in this matter. I did not 

 wholly rely upon my own judgment, but, after opening up my 

 collection, I made up small suits and sent them to various parties 

 for determination, without giving them the location from which 

 they were collected, but simply asking for specific determinations, 

 and without repeating what others had said, or even giving my 

 own conclusions, and there was unanimous agreement as to all 

 the species I have published. 



It will thus be seen that I have taken extraordinary care to be 

 certain of my facts before publishing them and my conclusions 

 drawn therefrom. 



The evidence of the Jurassic age of the beds relied upon by 

 Professor Marcou is based upon two species found in the beds, 

 described by him as heretofore mentioned. One of them he calls 

 Gryphcea dilatata, var. Tucumcari Marcou, and the other Ostrea 

 marshii. 



After making my collection at Tucumcari, I sent to Europe for 

 samples of the Gryphcea dilatata from the type localities and 

 compared them with Marcou's variety collected by me. The best 

 that can be said is that it may be a variety of the original type. 



The samples collected by me of what I suppose was his Ostrea 

 marshii are not 0. marshii, but O. subovata of Shumard. We 

 have hundreds of specimens of O. subovata in the museum, col- 

 lected from well-known Cretaceous horizons, and upon compari- 

 son with them the specimens from Tucumcari are found to agree in 

 every essential particular. Therefore the proof of the Jurassic 

 age of the beds is narrowed down to one fossil, and that only a 

 variety of the form found in the Jurassic of Europe, and which 

 has not been reported from any of the well-known Jurassic hori- 

 zons in North America. This will certainly not be considered 

 sufficient to establish the Jurassic age of the beds when there is 

 associated with it the other forms enumerated which are certainly 

 Ci'etaceous. 



I placed a great deal of stress upon the fact of having found 

 in these beds a dicotyledonous leaf, as proving the Cretaceous age 

 of the beds, for the reason that, so far as I know, no dicotyledons 

 have been reported from any strata lower than the Cretaceous, in 

 either North America or Europe. It is true that they have been 

 reported from beds which some geologists held to be Jurassic, but 

 which by others were referred to the Cretaceous upon the very 

 ground that they contained dicotyledons. 



Professor A. Hyatt has been quoted as expressing the opinion 

 in private that the beds at Tucumcari were Jurassic, but in a re- 

 cent article he deprecates such a use of his opinions privately ex- 

 pressed, says it was unauthorized, and asserts that he has no 

 opinion on the subject. 



