reference to Ms brief notices of a few of them published to the date of 

 his writing. 



Omitting notice of sundry insignificant questions raised in a postcript 

 to the paper, as well as those which are more or less repetitions of criti- 

 cisms already made, I pass to his denial of the possession of a proboscis 

 to these animals. I retain my belief that they had such an organ, and 

 refer to my essay above cited for the proofs. Leidy has suspected its 

 presence in Megaceratops. He then says "(7th) the malar bone does not 

 form the middle element of the zygomatic arch, but the anterior as in 

 the tapir." It forms the middle element in Loxolophodon, as maybe seen 

 from my figures. Below, its maxillary support forms one-third of the 

 zygoma, at the side a little less, and above, a narrow lamina of the malar 

 extends nearly to the lachrymal. 



"(9) The nasal bones are not deeply excavated at their extremities." 

 They are excavated, etc., as I have described. 



Now it is easy to see by an examination of Prof. Marsh's figures of 

 ZFintatherium mirabile, where all this blundering criticism comes from, 

 and I have pointed out to him that this is the source of error. But Prof. 

 Marsh evidently desires no such consideration from my hands, but "mira- 

 bile dictu^" 1 repeats his statements, as though the Uintatherium were a 

 Rosinante, and the ninth commandment a wind-mill. 



Professer Marsh asserts that I have reversed the positions of the tusks 

 of Loxolophodon, placing that of the left side on the right, etc. This 

 statement is not true, and I have carefully distinguished the sides in my 

 description (Short-footed Ungulata, etc., p. 10). In my Plate 2nd, the 

 inner side is not represented as the outer, as the inner surfaces of attri- 

 tion are omitted, and the external represented. Like his other charges, 

 this one results from a misapprehension. Having seen a photograph in 

 which, for the assistance of the artist, the left tusk was taken on the 

 right side, he at once concludes that my lithograph represents it in the 

 same position. 



There is no inaccuracy in my statement of dates of publication of 

 Prof. Marsh's genera. I have never stated that the name Tinoceras was 

 proposed August 24th, but that it was referred to the Proboscidia at that 

 date. This name was published in an erratum on August 19th, but was 

 never described until September 21st and then only by implication in the 

 description of a species. Loxolopliodon and Eobasileus were described 

 August 19th and 20th, with separate diagnoses. 



I am charged with giving an erroneous date to his communication of 

 December 20th before the American Philosophical Society. This will 

 also be found to be correct by reference to the report of my communica- 

 tion (Proceedings Academy Natural Sciences, January 14th, 1878). 



Prof. Marsh's standard of honesty is however so high, that he seems 

 to think it essential that in redescribing the objects of our studies, all 

 errors of first work must be faithfully transcribed. In order as it were 

 to enforce this view, he faithfully ignores corrections of their own work 



