B. T. Rill — The alleged Jurassic of Texas. 467 



and Nomenclature," published at Cambridge, 1888. This is a 

 bitter attack upon nearly every American geologist of the past 

 half century, all of whom except myself, of whom Mr. Marcou 

 was then fulsome in his praise (for reasons elsewhere explained), 

 are accused of outrageous personal conduct, such as " suppress- 

 ing facts," "falsifying," "misquoting," " incompetent obser- 

 vations," etc., etc., and speaks of "the constant and utmost 

 opposition " of Messrs. James Hall, T. S terry Hunt, W. E. 

 Logan, James D. Dana, the two Professors Rogers, and Pro- 

 fessor C. H. Hitchcock, and to this list he adds in his own 

 handwriting on page 8 of the copy sent to me, the name of 

 Charles D. Walcott. Also, on page 11, he accuses Professor 

 Dana " in accordance with his usual practice of giving credit 

 to those to whom it does not belong, and pretending that the 

 Lower Silurian is called Champlain by Mather." On page 17 

 he accuses Mr. Walcott of having been " misled by the erron- 

 eous notions constantly and perversely put forward by Mr. 

 Dana." 



I could quote from his various writings many other such 

 denunciations, chiefly directed at Professor Dana as the head 

 and leader of American geologists, just as he now assails me 

 because I have been a pioneer in the late studies of the Meso- 

 zoic in the Texas region. I could fill a volume with similar 

 attacks upon other men of science, such as his accusations of a 

 like kind against Newberry, Hall, Stevenson and others. It 

 was owing to the error of his deductions, his habit of absorb- 

 ing to his own credit every new discovery in the Southwest, 

 and printing imaginary geological maps of the United States, 

 of persistently misquoting other writers, of accusing every one 

 of paleontologic or stratigraphic incompetency, and of indulg- 

 ing in personal abuse and vituperation, that Professor Dana at 

 one time demanded that the Boston Society of Natural His- 

 tory should investigate him, and in later years ignored him 

 entirely. 



So far as I am aware, his conclusions on the subjects discussed 

 are not accepted by a single living geologist in this country or 

 abroad, and he has hurled criticisms, similar to those now made 

 against me, at the head of every prominent American geologist 

 who has lived since he first came to this country. During the 

 first few years of my studies I was inclined to believe that he 

 might have been right in his conclusions concerning the Juras- 

 sic age of the beds of the Tucumcarri region, and committed 

 this opinion to print. So long as I leaned to his opinions he 

 was fulsome in his praise, bestowing upon me effusive compli- 

 ments as to my ability, etc., etc., and even writing among 

 others of a similar flattering nature, the following notice* of 



* Jura Neocomian and Chalk of Arkansas. — Marcou. From the American 

 Geologist, December, 1889, pp. 366-367. 



