THE 
AMERICAN NATURALIST 
. Vor. XXIX. June, 1895. 342 
IS DAEMONELIX A BURROW?! 
A REPLY TO Dr. THEODOR Fucus. 
By Erwin HINCKLEY BARBOUR. 
Dr. Theodor Fuchs, criticises at considerable length the 
nature of Daemonelix as described by the author, in the Uni- 
versity Studies, of the University of Nebraska, Vol. I, No. 4, 
July, 1892, under the title, ‘ Notes on a New Order of Gigantic 
Fossils.’ 
When the criticism first appeared it seemed so fraught with 
errors that they were counted its own best rebuttal, and no at- 
tempt to frame a reply was thought of. However, the author 
has several times of late been reminded that these errors might 
pass muster and become fixed in the minds of those, at least, 
who place too implicit reliance in authority. Therefore in all 
justice to himself and to those who have been entirely mis- 
guided and misinformed the author thinks it better, perhaps, 
to correct certain errors and inaccuracies. 
After carefully describing the burrows of the supposed 
Miocene gopher, citing as important proof the rodent found 
inside of one specimen of Daemonelix, and after quoting Ges- 
ner on the ‘ Habit of the Pouched Rat’ Geomys pineti, of 
Georgia, he writes: 
1 In Annalen k. k. Naturhistorichen Hofmuseums, Wein, 1893, Pages 91 to 94. 
35 
