in the Southern Old-tertiary. 433 



using dots, and dotted them because if they had been cited, it 

 would have been necessary to show the reader that they did 

 not prove anything at all. T should have been obliged to show 

 how Lyell fails to give the proof of this statement here or after- 

 wards, how no author in the following literature proves this 

 statement about this locality, and how Tuomey, a good ob- 

 server, knowing the strata of Alabama better than anybody 

 before him and accepting all conclusions of Lyell, flatly con- 

 tradicts this statement by saying: "It must be recollected that 

 the Claiborne fossiliferous bed is nowhere in absolute juxtapo- 

 sition with the overlying Orbiloides limestone," which words I 

 cited afterwards (p. 64). 



On page 273, Professor Smith says that I did not quote an 

 article of Hale; and Mr. Aldrich also refers (p. 306) to the 

 same apparent neglect. As I mention Mr. Hale's name on 

 page 69, in the fourth line, it was sufficiently manifest that I 

 knew of his published paper, and since I say that I do not 

 attempt to review the whole literature, they should have 

 inferred that I found nothing of sufficient importance in Mr. 

 Hale's article to require a further mention. As attention has 

 thus been drawn to Mr. Hale's article, I will here state that, 

 although it is not directly connected with our subject, one fact 

 which he mentions is of the highest interest and has impressed 

 me for a long time. On page 357 and 358 he speaks of a ter- 

 restrial vertebrate fauna, found as far as I can understand him, 

 in the proper Claibornian stratum. A cranium from this fauna 

 in his cabinet he compares with Grlyptodon. I have not found 

 anything about this in the rest of the literature. Can anyone 

 give information about this very remarkable fauna and tell 

 where the specimens are? 



One of my main purposes in Claiborne was to keep the fossils 

 of the different strata separate from each other. Therefore 

 the suggestion of Professor Smith, that my specimen of Orbi- 

 toicles in "6" (and in "e") and Conrad's Spondylus dumosus might 

 .have been washed down from the higher strata above, is not 

 very flattering either to me or to Conrad. Conrad says, that 

 he found his specimen attached to an oyster in the resp. 

 stratum. So this oyster must have been washed down also. 

 But I fail to see d priori, why Professor Smith suggests this 

 possibility. As yet no observer has found a single specimen 

 of these two species in the strata above "e" in the Claiborne 

 profile. Therefore, as far as we know from observations, they 

 do not occur there. How, then, could they be washed down? 

 As for Spondylus dumosus, moreover, Mr. Aldrich states (p. 

 305) that he has "lately found it at Hatchitigbee bluff, 25 feet 

 beneath the buhrstone," that is still lower beneath the proper 

 Claibornian than Conrad found it. 



