292 SOME OF PROFESSOR MARSH’S CRITICISMS. 
Now it is easy to see by an examination of Professor Marsh’s 
figures of Uintatherium mirabile where all this blundering criticism 
comes from, and I have pointed out to him that this is the source 
of error. But Professor Marsh evidently desires no such consid- 
eration from’my hands, but repeats his statements, as though 
Uintatherium were a Rosinante, and the ninth commandment a 
wind-mill. 
There is no inaccuracy in my statement of dates of publication 
of Professor Marsh’s genera. I have never stated that the name 
Tinoceras was proposed August 24th, but that it was referred to 
the Proboscidia at that date. This name was published in an 
erratum on August 19th, but was never described until September 
21st and then only by implication in the description of a species. 
Loxolophodon and Hobasileus were described August 19th and 
20th, with separate diagnoses. 
I am charged with giving an erroneous date to his communica- 
tion of December 20th before the American Philosophical Society. 
This will also be found to be correct by reference to the report of 
my communication (Proceedings Academy Natural Sciences, Jan- 
uary 14th, 1873). 
Having already gone into the discussion of the affinities of 
these animals, I run rapidly over the characters assigned by Prof. - 
Marsh to a supposed new order Dinocerea (which he now spells 
as corrected, oe Those from the first to and including 
e fourth are entirely trivial; the last, which denies air cavities 
to the cranium is moreover untrue, as they exist in the squamosal 
region as I have stated. The fifth is not true of all the genera. 
The definitions from the seventh to the eleventh are of no weight 
whatever. As the twelfth, he gives ‘the very small molar teeth 
and their vertical replacement.” This is precisely the state of 
ings in the proboscidian Dinotherium, a form which Prof. Marsh 
has overlooked. The 13th and 15th, “ the small lower jaw,” and 
“ absence of hallux” are of no weight if true; but the lower jaw 
has marked proboscidian features in the symphysis and teeth, and 
it is probable that some of the species had a hallux. The 16th, 
‘absence of proboscis” is probably an error, certainly so for two 
of the genera. I have passed over the (6th) “the presence of 
large postglenoid processes,” and (14th) ‘the articulation of the 
astragalus with both navicular and cuboid bones,” as of some value. 
_ They are, indeed, the only characters of any wide systematic sig- 
