
1891.] A Reply to Professor Marsh. 779 
the type itself, but even since the author’s suggestion" that the 
type is part of a maxilla it is again described and figured as a 
lower jaw in Flower and Lydekker’s “ Mammals,” “ 
8. That I followed Cope’s error in founding the genus Menis- 
coéssus upon a supposed premolar, which is, in fact, a reptilian 
tooth. It is distinctly stated in my review, as well as in Cope’s 
original description, that the type of Meniscoéssus is the molar 
tooth, as is also implied by the term itself.'® Professor Cope 
himself expressed serious doubts as to the mammalian nature 
of the “premolar.” When I examined it, finding a basal cingu- 
lum and close histological resemblance to the molar, I described 
it as a premolar, and figured it as a probable premolar. 
There is, however, reasonable doubt as to its mamma- 
lian character, for the basal portion of the crown is entirely want- 
ing, removing all evidence as to the character of the fangs. 
g. That I mistook two portions of a fish (Hybodus) tooth, arti- 
ficially cemented together, for a mammalian premolar. I con- 
cluded my description of this tooth inthe following way: “ If it 
is actually from the Rhetic beds, it probably represents a premo- 
lar of Triglyphus.” I thus clearly expressed my doubts as to its 
reference to a long-established genus, and was far from selecting 
such a specimen as the type of a new genus and family of mam- 
mals, as the author has done in the case of Stagodon. 
It thus appears that of these eight alleged errors I have myself 
long since published corrections of the two relating to Phascoloth- 
erium and Tritylodon; that nothing has been added by recent 
discovery to my definition of the Multituberculata ; that my asso- 
ciation of the supposed premolars with Meniscoéssus and Trigly- 
phus was in each case accompanied by an expressed doubt, 
either in the description or figure; finally, that my conclusions 
regarding the Bolodontidz (Allodontidz), if erroneous, have never- 
theless been adopted and supported by the author himself. The 
author’s criticisms will therefore have little weight with persons who 
183 Amer. Jour. Sci., April, 1887, p. 343. 
14P, 110, Fig. 27. 
‘S The question of this nomenclature is fully discussed in the AMERICAN NATURALIST, 
July, 1891. 

