REPLY TO MR. TYRRELL's NOTE. 285 



REPLY TO MR. TYRRELL'S NOTE. 



By Ernest E. Thompson. 



Mr. Tyrrell has made a reply to my criticism of his paper that is 

 in most respects, apart from certain preliminary adjectives, just what 

 it ought to be. The reader, however, will be amused if he turns to 

 my letter and i-eads the paragraph which Mr. Tyrrell characterizes 

 as a " diati'ibe," " vilifying," etc., but which he admits to be logically 

 unanswerable. 



Mr. Tyrrell responds to my demand for the grounds on which he 

 bases several interesting records by giving the data which should 

 have appeared at the time, but he errs in saying that I impugned 

 their truthfulness, as he will see on re-reading my note. 



I withdraw the charges of plagiarism. 



On the next question, that of Lepus sylvaticus, he admits he is 

 wrong. 



On the next, Geomys hursarius, he endeavours, by a curious juggle 

 of words, to prove that he is right, when he himself knows he has 

 made an egregious mistake, and would shew to much better advan- 

 tage by admitting and correcting it. If he takes the trouble to look 

 the matter up he will find that I did not quote " Shaw." 



Mr. Tyrrell does not appear to be aware that the authenticity of 

 the Fort William specimens has been challenged ; but, even sup- 

 posing it were not so, the idea of ascribing this species to the vast 

 region that he names, much of which lies further north than Fort 

 William, shews such a melancholy ignorance of the whole subject of 

 faunal areas and distribution as can only be accounted for on the 

 ground that we have here the ambitious effort of a geologist who has 



