394 The . American Naturalist. [April, 
Fortunately, a plaster of Paris deception, once set, is just the hard 
and lasting, and perfectly tangible sort of falshood that Science, with- 
out reserve lays rough hands on. And the day has at last come, we hope, 
when specimens from the plaster of Paris formation will no longer be 
accepted by science as fossils, and the ‘‘ Plasterosauri,!’’ and ‘‘ Plastero- 
theria’’ will be things of the past. 
In his great antedated volume on the Dinocerata, the figures of his 
so-called Dinoceras and Tinoceras are plump with plaster. Why, in 
these plates of the Dinocerata many of the skulls and bones show not a 
trace of their construction! How strongly contrasted with this are 
the methods of all other American and foreign geologists, both as 
regards the specimens themselves, and the illustrations of them. 
These true paleontologists figure what they have, and do not figure 
what they have not (Figs. 7 and 8) 
7 

Fics. 7 and 8.—Skulls of — Dinocerata, introduced to illustrate differences of treat- 
ment by different authors. G. 7.—Skull of Loxolophodon ingens Marsh, illustrating 
fairly the whole work on the gria ocerata. Itwill be noticed that = figure is free from 
ything suggestive of the blemishes covered up with colored 
Speaking of Dinoceras and Tinoceras brings to mind that interest- 
a time when his review of the ghitrene sie ‘omg ed tee by 
lasterosauri not original, A li th t of the 
sina by a Yale professor, to whom Professor Wania was rh his various Sauri. 

