R. T Hill — The alleged Jurassic of Texas. 465 



After perusing the foregoing pages one cannot but wonder 

 why Professor Marcou should wrongfully accuse others of 

 maliciously misquoting. Let the reader put side by side the 

 two first abstracts we have given from his writings concerning 

 the Comet Creek Grypkwa on pp. 17-18. The second of 

 these was published by him as a verbatim copy* of the first, 

 yet in this alleged verbatim copy he has changed the name of 

 every species mentioned in the original and made other addi- 

 tions, and this, too, without one word of explanation. These 

 instances together with the misquotations elsewhere given of 

 Aguilera the Mexican Geologist, of himself and myself, are 

 but a few of the many examples which conld be given showing 

 that he has certainly exceeded the ordinary limits of toleration 

 in such practices, in which I have never, intentionally, indulged 

 in, as he charges. 



In the paper in the September number of this Journal, 

 Professor Marcou also accuses Messrs. Hall, Roemer, Shumard, 

 G-abb, Charles A. White, Hill, Cragin and Stanton of confus- 

 ing species, and I can but consider it an honor that he should 

 have selected my head, above all these distinguished authori- 

 ties, upon which to pour the last and most concentrated dregs 

 of his wrath. His many papers are bristling with similar 

 assaults devoted to denouncing the scientific value of the work 

 of James D. Dana, James Hall, J. S. Newberry, F. B. Meek, 

 W. P. Blake, T. A. Conrad, J. D. Whitney, C.A.White, 

 J. J. Stevenson, with side notes on nearly every American 

 geologist of the past fifty years, against whom as a whole he 

 has also launched certain epithets. It can be readily seen that 

 his assaults upon me are felt less keenly when one considers 

 the distinguished company with which I have been placed by 

 him. This will be made still more apparent by the following 

 brief resume of the controversy which he has so long con- 

 ducted. 



The invalidity of Professor Marcou's conclusions concern- 

 ing the Jurassic age of the New Mexican locality was early 

 shown in many papers by the principal American geologists, 

 of the decade of 1855-1865, among whom were W. P. Blake, 

 B. F. Shumard, J. S. Newberry, F. B. Meek, T. A. Conrad, 

 James Hall, James D. Dana, Lesquereux and others. The 

 whole substance of the controversy and proof of the inaccu- 

 racy of Professor Marcou's conclusions, have been ably set 

 forth by Professor Dana in this Journal for November, 1858, 

 p. 323, and January, 1859, pp. 137-141. This was the origi- 

 nal Marcou controversy, which died out in the year 1867. The 

 later and detailed studies in the field by the present school of 

 geologists, have confirmed by stratigraphic research that these 

 * See Geology of North America, p. 7. 



