
776 The American Naturahst. [September, 
Without question, these and all other U. S. Geological Survey 
` types, now that they have been described and figured by the 
author, should be placed in the National Museum, where they 
could be studied under the ordinary museum restrictions. The 
examination of type specimens which the author regards “as a 
matter of courtesy ” is rather a matter of custom and necessity ; 
especially is this true-where the types are not private but public 
property, and have been employed in official reports. 
Nevertheless, after carefully reading the author’s “ Note,” I am 
more confident than before that an examination of the types will 
fully confirm all the main points raised in my review. As the 
“ Note” contains very little in the nature of direct consideration 
of my criticisms, I had not intended to answer it ; but my attention 
has been called to the probability that, like the author’s original 
papers on the Cretaceous Mammalia, this one might have consid- 
erable weight with naturalists who happen to be entirely unfa- 
miliar with the morphology and literature of the Mesozoic Mam- 
malia. We find two features in the “ Note”: first, a number of 
definite statements in regard to the structure and classification 
of the Mesozoic mammals which bear directly upon this discus- 
sion,—these I shall now consider and answer; second, a number 
of unfavorable but indefinite comments upon the character and 
methods exhibited in my paleontological papers. To the latter 
I shall make no reply, because, if these papers are of no value, 
my personal statement to the contrary would have no weight; 
moreover, such discussion would merely divert attention from the 
real question at issue, as raised in my review,—viz., the character 
of the evidence advanced by Professor Marsh for the existence of 
a very numerous and highly varied Cretaceous fauna. Of the 
twelve specific statements made by the author in his “ Note,” four 
are in defence of his “ Cretaceous Mammals,” eight are in criti- 
cism of alleged errors in my papers upon the Jurassic and Triassic 
mammals, especially in the “ Memoir Upon the Structure and 
Classification of the Mesozoic Mammalia.” I may first reply to 
the latter. 
1. It is first stated that I separated Dromotherium from Micro- 
conodon upon insufficient grounds, and figured the type of the 



