
1869.] SENATE—No. 60. _ 33 
paleontologists, species widely unlike being designated as if 
they belonged to the same genus, and those agreeing in their 
generic characters, being referred to distinct genera. Under 
these circumstances, as is not surprising, fossils intimately 
related were often widely separated, even when there was an 
attempted arrangement, while those not at all closely allied, 
were arbitrarily placed in juxtaposition from a mechanical fol- 
lowing of names —a result naturally to be expected in the first 
efforts to classify diverse objects. In this endeavor to arrange 
specimens systematically, as should be added, the work had 
been seldom, perhaps never, pushed so far, as to appear in the 
grouping of species according to their natural affinities; so, 
again, older specimens were frequently found mingled with the 
Tertiary, especially those of the Cretaceous era, there having 
been a failure to discriminate closely between those of the Meso- 
zoic and those of the Cainozoic age. The same was likewise true 
of the Post-Tertiary fossils, the line of demarcation between them 
and the Tertiary not having been critically regarded, as was not 
indeed to be expected in the earlier stages of the work. 
Once more: it became apparent that Tertiary specimens were 
to a considerable extent, scattered all through the building, 
some being here, a few more there, and others in additional 
corners, occasionally by themselves, though often mingled with 
fossils of various ages. It also became evident that there had 
been, in some instances, a mixing of fossils from different local- 
ities —a result scarcely to be avoided in the repeated removals 
of so many collections, consisting of such a vast number of 
specimens. Toa very large extent, these specimens were in 
small pasteboard trays, accompanied by original labels — labels 
which give great value to the specimens, as being the determi- 
nations of such men as Bronn, Duval, De Koninck, Meyer, Eich- 
wald, Hornes, Michelotti, Bellardi, and others. In most 
instances they were accompanied by a sort of semi-duplicate 
labels, consisting of portions of the original labels, respecting 
which there was no question, with the designation of the collec- 
tion to which the specimens respectively belonged, and occasion- 
ally of the year of purchase or exchange. 
Such is substantially the state in which I found the Tertiary 
collections of the Museum —a state almost inseparable from 
the mode in which the specimens have been brought together, 
5 
