SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 



The first forty-eight pages of this paper were published in December 

 1864 and January 1865. On the 9th of March 1866, I received from Prof. 

 WiNCHELL a copy of a memoir entitled " An Enumeration of Fossils 

 collected in the Niagara Limestone at Chicago^ Illinois ; with descriptions 

 of several new species : By Prof. Alexander Winchell and Prof. 

 Oliver Marcy ; with two lithographic plates. [From the Memoirs read 

 before the Boston Society of Natural History, Vol. 1, No. 1], Cambridge, 

 December 1865." 



In a " Supplementary note " to this paper, Prof. Winchell has made 

 some criticisms upon the species in my published paper, which I conceive 

 require from me some notice, and may excuse the liberty I have taken in 

 reviewing the " Note" and also the Memoir itself. 



The first two paragraphs of this Supplementary Note are as follows : 



" Supplementary Note." 



" About a month after the foregoing paper had been accepted for publi- 

 " cation, a pamphlet appeared, from the pen of Professor James Hall, 

 " entitled ' Account of some new or little known Species of Fossils from 

 " the Niagara Group.' This pamphlet, while mainly devoted to fossils from 

 " Wisconsin, embraces a notice of twenty-two species of fossils from lUi- 

 " nois, most of which are referred to Bridgeport, and the remainder of 

 " which, as I have since learned from examinations kindly permitted by 

 " Prof. Hall, come also from that locality. Of these, eleven species are 

 " quoted only from Bridgeport. 



" We had been aware, early in December 1864, that Prof. Hall was 

 "at work upon fossils from the Niagara group of Wisconsin ; and one of 

 "us also informed him that we had just completed a monograph of the 

 "fossils of Bridgeport, a work which had been in progress for about two 

 "years. It did not occur to either of us that Prof. Hall's plan, as we 

 " understood it, would embrace fossils recognized only at the locality upon 

 "which we had been especially engaged. From this misunderstanding has 

 "resulted a little synonymy, and a little clashing of identifications. A 

 " brief review of Prof. Hall's paper seems, consequently, to be called for." 



These paragraphs, at the time of their publication, caused me much 

 pain ; since the statement seemed to involve a question of fairness or 

 unfairness on my part, requiring an explanation, which at that time I had no 

 opportunity of giving. Feeling, as I did, conscious of having treated Prof. 

 Winchell not only fairly, but even generously, in regard to the whole 



