Geology and Natural History. 485 



Ameghino a trouve des os de mammiferes associes a des os de 

 Dinosauriens ? Nulle part ! La traduction de Particle dont parle 

 M. Hatcher est parfaitement correcte, mais la traduction que lui 

 en a donne a mon frere, qui ne lit pas l'anglais, est completement 

 inexacte. Dans Particle dont lui fait mention, tout ce qu'a ce 

 sujet je dis, c'est: "That this formation is secondary, is clearly 

 indicated by the Dinosaurs; on the other hand, as its upper beds 

 pass insensibly into another formation, which contains numerous 

 remains of mammals, it cannot be doubted that the sandstones 

 with Dinosaurs belong to the upper Cretaceous." 



" In Patagonia the beds with remains of Dinosaurs pass insen- 

 sibly into other beds with numerous remains of mammals, par- 

 ticularly of ungulates, which circumstance proves that the red 

 sandstones ought to be referred to the Upper Cretaceous." 



It will be noticed that Dr. Ameghino does not accuse me of 

 misquoting his brother's remarks to me. He also admits that the 

 translation in the Geological Magazine of the article referred to 

 is perfectly correct, but claims that my translation of it to his 

 brother was completely incorrect. He denies ever having stated 

 that C. Ameghino had found the bones of mammals associated 

 with the bones of Dinosaurs and calls upon me to indicate, in 

 what work and on what page he has said this, closing with the 

 exclamation, Nulle part ! (No where). Now if Dr. Ameghino 

 will but turn to page 10 of his "Notes on the Geology and 

 Paleontology of Argentina'''' (the same article from which he 

 quotes) as translated and published in the Geological Magazine 

 for January 1397, which translation, he tells us, is perfectly cor- 

 rect, commencing with the first paragraph from the bottom he 

 will find the following sentences: "I rely on the fact that these 

 beds with remains of Pyrotherium everywhere accompany the red 

 sandstones with remains of Dinosaurs, so that it has not hitherto 

 been possible to separate them in an absolute manner. These 

 sandstones in certain places exhibit nothing but bones of Dino- 

 saurs ; in others they show only remains of mammals and smaller 

 reptiles of types not yet determined ; while at other points cdl 

 these remains are shown mixed together (italics mine), at least to 

 all appearance, always accompanied by a great quantity of 

 silicified wood." From this I think my readers will agree with 

 me that the two short paragraphs quoted by Dr. Ameghino were 

 not quite all that he said on this subject in that paper, and that I 

 was fully justified in asking Charles Ameghino if he had found 

 the remains of mammals associated with those of Dinosaurs, 

 more especially since Dr. Ameghino has himself never seen any 

 portion of Patagonia, and all that he has written on that country 

 is based upon the observations of others and chiefly on those of 

 his brother. 



The same methods as those just shown are pursued throughout 

 the entire paper, which abounds in quotations so adroitly made 

 as to destroy the original meanings of the context, by sub- 

 stituting others never intended or implied by the various 



