•±68 R. T. Hill — The alleged Jurassic of Texas. 



the same Arkansas Eeport which, in the September number of 

 this Journal, he so severely condemns : 



" On the whole, Volume II of the Arkansas geological 

 report for 1888 is a most creditable work, which reflects honor 

 not only on its author, Professor Robert T. Hill, of the Uni- 

 versity of Texas, by far the best practical geologist who has 

 ever studied Southern Arkansas and Texas, but also on Pro- 

 fessor John C. Branner, the state geologist. The State of 

 Arkansas must be complimented to have secured the services 

 of such able observers." 



In the American Geologist for September, 1889, p. 156, he 

 also gives me credit as being " The only American Geologist 

 who has quoted my Mesozoic fossils of Texas."* Later, how- 

 ever, after my second visit to Tucumcarri Mesa, where and 

 when I was the first to discover and there to announce the 

 well-developed Cretaceous fauna identical with that of the 

 uppermost Lower Cretaceous beds of Denison, Texas, he 

 immediately directed his epithets at me, in articles elsewhere 

 cited, in the American Geologist, the Proceedings of the 

 Boston Society of Natural History, Science, and this Journal, 

 each attack being proportionately more personal and bitter, as 

 increasing research more and more conclusively demonstrated 

 the Cretaceous age of his New Mexican " Jurassic," and its 

 stratigraphic position above the beds of Comet Creek which he, 

 himself, had called Cretaceous. 



1 will admit that in the earlier years of my researches, when 

 my papersjwere largely written in the field away from libraries, 

 I have made occasional mistakes, (and who has not ?) some of 

 which are typographic, others slips of the pen, and others 

 merely mistakes, but these papers have always been conscien- 

 tiously written with a desire to state the truth, and in every 

 instance have been of material advancement to our knowledge 

 of the stratigraphy of the Texas region, and Mr. Marcou's 

 insinuation, " not to use a stronger word," that I have endeav- 

 ored to corrupt the record is false. No amount of abuse, mis- 

 representation or misquotation on the part of Professor Marcou 

 can alter the essential facts of research, nor cover up his own 

 misstatement of fact and imperfect and misleading quotations. 

 Even though he should succeed in his attempts to prove me 

 untruthful and a defacer of the geologic record — which he 

 cannot do — this would in no way excuse him for distorting and 

 imperfectly quoting every new scientific discovery in order to 

 uphold an erroneous and untenable deduction, founded on self- 

 confessed incomplete exploration. 



* In a subsequent paper in the American Geologist for August, 1894, p. 98, 

 in which, he makes his first change of front towards me, it is interesting to note 

 that his principal unspecified allegation against me is that I do " not always give 

 credit where credit is due." 



