

1891.] Cretaceous Mammalia. 597 
that Mr. J. L. Wortman discovered the first remains of Cretaceous 
Mammalia in 1882, a fact recorded by Professor Cope, as below: 
“ Mammalia, which have been 
looked for so long in vain in 
the Laramie beds, have at length 
been found. Mr. J. L. Wort- 
man . .. now announces that 
he has found them in place and 
mingled with Dinosaurian re- 
mains in such a manner as to 
leave no doubt as to their con- 
temporaneity.” — AMER. NAT., 
Oct., 1882, p. 830. 
“It has long been a reproach 
to paleontology that no remains 
of mammals were known from 
the Cretaceous formation. . . . 
For many years, therefore, 
special search has been made 
in various countries for Creta- 
ceous mammals, but thus far 
almost invariably without suc- 
cess. .. . A second announce- 
ment was made by Cope in 1882, 
based upón a few fragmentary 
remains discovered by Dr. J. L. 
.Wortman in Dakota. These 
fossils, although not found in 
place, were apparently from the 
Laramie formation.” — Ameri- 
can Journ. of Science and Arts, 
July, 188ọ, p. 81. 
These papers under review amply confirm Mr. Wortman’s dis- 
covery by describing many remains of the same mammal. 
Nevertheless the original discovery is made to appear very unim- 
portant by depriving the mammalian type of its name. This 
type was a molar tooth, described as follows: i 
“ Meniscoéssus conquistus, gen: 
et sp. nov.—But one specimen 
of this animal was found, and 
that is represented by two molar 
-~ teeth and a distal extremity of a 
humerus. Were it not for the 
associated molar tooth, I should 
think that the second tooth 
-e might be that of a herbivorous 
reptile. It is probably a fourth 
“It is now known that the 
tooth first described, and re- 
garded as a premolar, is the 
tooth of a Dinosaurian reptile, 
as suggested by Cope, and not 
ofa mammal. The name given, 
therefore, must apply to this 
alone. On this point the rules 
of nomenclature are clear and 
decisive. -The imperfect molar i 
