INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 



217 



At length, in November, 1861, Mr. Blake makes his ap- 

 pearance about this fossil Elephant. In a paper, ' On the 

 Distribution of Mastodon in South America,' the following- 

 sentence occurs, in sequence to remains on the remains of 

 E. primigenius in North America : ' South of the 30th degree 

 of N. latitude it ' (the Mammoth), ' however, gives place to a 

 totally different species of true Elephant (Elephas Texianus, 

 Owen, E. Columbi, Falconer), the molars of which by their 

 less degree of complexity were more adapted to triturate the 

 soft succulent herbage of Texas and Mexico.' 1 Here it will 

 be observed, the name E. Texianus is, with propriety, so far 

 as published evidence goes, attributed to the author, who 

 had four years before become responsible for it. But in 

 February of the present year another paper appeared in the 

 same periodical, entitled, ' On a fossil Elephant from Texas 

 (E. Texianus),' by Mr. Blake, who now stands sponsor for that 

 specific designation himself, E. Columbi being quoted as a 

 synonym. 2 It is a nice point to decide to whom the credit 

 of the new name should be awarded. Professor Owen at 

 first produces it as his own, and then, after a long interval, 

 assigns it to Mr. Blake : while conversely, the latter, in the 

 first instance, unguardedly attributes it to Professor Owen, 

 and then takes it to himself. There is jactitation of the 

 name between the two naturalists, with hesitation and self- 

 denial on both sides ; but it is clear that it is a joint pro- 

 duction ; and there is a consistent harmony of ideas and 

 expression in their reasoning regarding the succulent food of 

 the fossil species. Indeed, the only difference which I can 

 detect is, that Professor Owen introduces the name with a 

 small initial, and Mr. Blake with a capital ; by the canons of 

 nomenclature the younger naturalist has the advantage of 



Professor Owen from confounding, under 

 the common designation of Mastodon 

 angiistidens the dentition of three dis- 

 tinct species of Mastodon, one of them 

 belonging to the section Trilophodon, 

 and two to the section Tetralophodon. 

 Further, in the same work, ' Palaeonto- 

 logy,' Sismonda's figure of the Astesan 

 Mastodon is reproduced, as the principal 

 illustration of the genus, under the mis- 

 nomer of M. Turicensis, and described 

 as having ternary-ridged molars, like 

 M. Ohioticus, notwithstanding that Sis- 

 monda,* confirmed by myself after a 

 detailed examination, figures and de- 

 scribes it as quaternary-vidgei : M. Tu- 

 ricensis (a synonym of M. Tapiroides of 



the French palaeontologists) being a 

 miocene species of the Dinotherian type, 

 and the Astesan Mastodon (M. Anier- 

 nensis) a pliocene species of another 

 type. These and other like errors, which 

 I could adduce, are brought out in a 

 work professing to be an exposition of 

 the science at the present day. But 

 with reference to the 'Bollaert' and 

 ' Kaup ' citations here challenged, it is 

 necessary to direct attention to the re- 

 prehensible practice of citing known 

 works for matter, the existence of which 

 cannot be traced in them. 



1 Geologist, 1861. Vol. iv. p. 470 



2 Op. cit. 1862. Vol. v. p. 57. 



* ' Osteographia di un Mastodonte Angustidcnte.' Turin, 1851, 4to. p. 23 line 

 10. PI. i. fig. 2. ' 



