TINOCERAS AND ITS ALLIES. 307 
tusks figured in plate I of Prof. Cope’s paper are not in their true 
position, and in plate II the left tusk is placed on the right side, 
thus entirely reversing its characters. 8th. The name Loxolopho- 
don was not applied to the genus Tinoceras, Aug. 19th, 1872, but 
long afterward, and then altered to Lefalophodon, with specific 
names all different from those now claimed. A good example of 
the inaccuracy which seems inseparable from Prof. Cope’s work is 
seen in the explanation of the plates of this paper, where two seri- 
ous mistakes occur in the first line. 
Prof. Cope concludes with some remarks about nomenclature, 
evidently aiming to save, if possible, some of his names which are 
anticipated by mine. His views as to what constitutes publication 
are absurd, and would not be accepted by any scientific authority. 
His precepts about describing genera may be fitly compared with 
his practice, without going beyond the Dinocerata. The name 
Loxolophodon Cope was first given, without description, to a genus 
which Prof. Cope now rejects, and when again applied, contrary 
to usage, to the genus Tinoceras, all the generic characters men- 
tioned existed only in that author’s imagination. 
In a late number of “ Nature” (February 27th, Vol. VII, p. 
335), there is a report, written by Prof. Cope, of various meetings 
of the American Philosophical Society. This report, which was 
unauthorized by the society, contains several important misstate- 
ments. Under the meeting of August 16th, 1872, it is stated that 
“A communication from Prof. Cope was read on his discovery of 
* Proboscidia in the Wyoming Eocene,’ * * * a new genus, Eoba- 
silews, was described.” ‘The official records of this society show 
that no paper with this title, or on this subject was read at this 
meeting, and none was even presented until more than a month 
later, or September 20th. This misstatement is a serious one, 
Since it is likely to mislead European naturalists as to the paper 
thus antedated. The description of “ Eobasileus” as quoted in 
this report is quite different from that given in the paper when 
read, or as since published (February 6th, 1873), in the 
ings of the Society, Vol. XII, p. 485. This makes at least the | 
sixth time this genus has been antedated, and its supposed charac- 
ters changed by Prof. Cope within as many months. 
A circular has lately been issued by Prof. Cope requesting sig- 
_. Ratures from those who received his papers, the dates of which I 
___ have questioned. This circular quotes from my note on page 151, 
