
THE 
AMERICAN NATURALIST 
VoL. XXV. SEPTEMBER, er 297. 




A REPLY TO PROFESSOR MARSH'S “NOTE ON 
MESOZOIC MAMMALIA.”? 
BY PROF. HENRY F. OSBORN. 
z Cy more than a thousand specimens of Cretaceous mam- 
mals on which my investigations are based he has not 
seen a single one, and no others are known, except a few frag- 
ments.” 
In the above paragraph Professor Marsh refers to the fact, also 
stated very distinctly in my review of his “ Discovery of Cre- 
taceous Mammalia,” that I had not examined his material, and 
implies that my criticism is of less value because based solely upon 
his descriptions and figures. This, I may explain, was not from 
any lack of appreciation of the importance of studying type- 
specimens, but because these types, together with the other large 
mammalian collections belonging to the government, are not 
accessible to American paleontologists. I should certainly 
have examined them if I could have done so under conditions * 
similar to those in which specimens belonging to the various 
foreign museums are made accessible to others and myself. 
'Thi * pri is a reply toan article entitled “A Review of the Cretaceous Mam- 
malia,” F. Obsorn. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc., Phila., 1891; and was read before 
Geological stead A. A. A. S., Washington: D. C., August arst, oe 
The original unaltered copy of " Note on Mesozoic Mammalia,” as privately printed 
and distributed abroad, was reprinted in the AMERICAN NATURALIST for July, with the 
original copy of the “ Review.” For the amended " Note” see Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. 
Phila. . 
3 In former papers I have made full acknowledgments of the opportunities afforded me 
by Professor Marsh for examining his types. Such were also extended to me in connec- 
tion with the Cretaceous mammals, but under conditions which I could not accept, 
