302 The American Naturalist. [March, 
their close affinity has now been clearly demonstrated.” Now a word- 
about this great discovery, which has been already reported in text- 
books and popular works. The specimen on which the conclusion 
was based is pathological: The animal when alive had a fracture of 
the lower part of the metatarsus, but it was happy enough to recover 
from this accident. The bones codéssified, as it generally happens in 
such cases, at the place where they were broken, but not at any other 
place. From this pathological specimen Prof. Marsh trumpeted forth to 
the world one of his greatest discoveries. Prof. Marsh knows very 
well that this specimen is pathological, but he has never taken back 
his blunder, notwithstanding that I discussed this matter at different 
times with him, 
4. Another accusation of Prof. Cope against Prof. Marsh is, that he 
has plagiarized the work of ofhers. This is so well known among 
scientists that it is hardly necessary to go into this point. But I may 
give a few examples. Everybody. knows that Prof. Huxley’s lectures 
on the evolution of the horse were written long before Prof. Marsh be- 
gan to work on the subject. That Kowalevsky published two exten- 
sive memoirs on the genealogy of the horse in the year before Marsh, is 
also a fact. 
Prof. Marsh states that he never saw Kowalevsky’s work before his 
own was completed and partly published. This may be, but it hardly 
agrees with the fact that one of Kowalevsky’s papers was published in 
the greatest paleontological journal of to-day, in Prof. V. Zittel’s 
Paleontographica, and the other one in the Memoirs of the St. Peters- 
- burg Academy. Prof. Marsh’s invectives against Kowalevsky, the most 
able paleontologist of Europe, a man admired by Darwin and Huxley, 
who took his life in an attack of insanity, are outrageous. It shows 
that Prof. Marsh is not afraid of any means he can use to defend his 
. reputation. 
n the same way Prof. Marsh has tried to plagiarize an important 
discovery by Dr. T., W. Hulke, of London, a president of the Geological 
Society of this city. Dr. Hulke published in 1875, in the Proceedings 
of the Geol. Soc. of London, a paper, with figures, in which he ex- 
pressed some entirely new ideas on the pelvis of birds and reptiles. 
Dr. Hulke sent a copy of this paper to Prof. Marsh, who, besides, re- 
ceives regularly the Geological Journal. ‘Three years later Prof. Marsh 
publishes exactly the same results as Dr. Hulke, and he is kind enough 
to state in a foot note, ‘‘ After these figures were made, showing the 
position of the Dinosaurian pubis, which has caused so much discus- 
sion since Cuvier, I found that Dr. T. W. Hulke had already suggested 
