January 1, 1886.] SCIENCE. 11 



exactly two inches, of the next three and a half 

 inches, and next to the outer one five inches, ' cer- 

 tainly has a modern look,' as Dr. Farquharson truly 

 remarks (vol. ii. p. 109). The reader is doubtless 

 aware that among the illustrations in the latter part 

 of the dictionary mentioned is a figure of the zodiac 

 with four rings or zones (p. 1704). 



These facts, gathered from the statements and 

 figures published in the Proceedings of the academy, 

 are presented for consideration by our antiquarians. 

 The question of the authenticity of these relics 

 should, if possible, be definitely settled, as they have, 

 if genuine, an important bearing on some trouble- 

 some archeological problems. Cyrus Thomas. 



Dr. Otto Meyer and the south-western tertiary. 



In the December number of the American journal 

 of science, Dr. Otto Meyer publishes what purports 

 to be a reply to criticisms on his attempt to prove 

 that all observers previous to himself have been mis- 

 taken as to the broad facts of the succession of the 

 tertiary strata of the south-western states, and that 

 what Lyell and the American geologists have found 

 to be the top is really the bottom, and vice versa. 

 This is the third of three lengthy papers devoted by 

 him to the same theme ; and one would naturally 

 suppose that one who is allowed to occupy so much 

 space in a scientific journal of such high standing 

 had at least some new observations of his own to 

 communicate, upon which to base so sweeping an 

 assertion ; and that he had studied and candidly con- 

 sidered the published work of his predecessors. His 

 second paper showed the extremely limited extent of 

 his own observations, and his failure to even read, 

 much less study, the literature of the subject, 

 from which he quoted only disjointed sentences, 

 selected to suit his ideas. The three articles in the 

 October number of the journal, from three observers 

 whose observations he calmly sets aside as unworthy 

 of confidence beside his own superior lights, expressed 

 their astonishment at the cool assumption, grounded 

 on such a slender basis, that pervades Dr. Meyer's 

 methods and assertions ; and they gave a few of the 

 simple facts that irrefragably prove the correctness 

 of the recognized succession of formations. 



In his latest article, Meyer goes even farther than 

 before. He not only denies categorically that stratig- 

 raphy alone, including dips, can give any certainty 

 as to the nati.ral succession of the formations, unless 

 we could ' follow the strata foot by foot; ' but he pro- 

 ceeds to pick out from the work of myself and others 

 such portions as leave room for doubt in their inter- 

 pretation, and upon these constructs and supports his 

 fanciful fabric. He simply ignores facts pointedly 

 stated, that completely overturn his whole scheme ; 

 as, for instance, the paragraph in which I state the 

 fact, verified innumerable times, that the sandstone 

 of the Grand Gulf group is found ' 1 overlying the Vicks- 

 burg strata generally along the southern line of the 

 Vicksburg group." In the face of this statement, 

 which, if he had chosen, he could easily have verified 

 near the very localities examined hy him at Jackson 

 and Vicksburg, and of the universal and patent fact 

 that all the divisions of the Mississippi tertiary dis- 

 appear beneath the drainage-level with a southward 

 or south-westward dip, he presents for acceptance by 

 guileless American geologists a section in which the 

 Grand Gulf rocks are made the base of the tertiary. 

 In referring to the re-appearance of the Jackson 



shell bed at one point on the Chickasawha River, 

 southward of the main belt, he entirely overlooks the 

 fact that it is there directly overlaid by the most 

 characteristic ' orbitoides limestone ' of the Vicksburg 

 group, under which it disappears to southward. 



Similar methods are pursued in other cases, varied 

 with elementary platitudes concerning the general 

 value of lithological and paleontological characters. 



I cannot consent to cumber the columns of this or 

 any other journal with a detailed refutation of asser- 

 tions founded upon such methods of procedure. 

 Whenever Dr. Meyer or any one else shall come for- 

 ward with any thing tangible that seems incompatible 

 with the results deduced from my elaborate re- 

 searches in the south-western tertiary, I am ready to 

 discuss the issue ; but I am unwilling to waste time, 

 paper, and ink upon the flimsy but elastic struc- 

 ture which Dr. Meyer has, in the face of known 

 facts, evolved from his inner consciousness. Fortu- 

 nately, the geological area which he attempts to turn 

 wrong side up is now again under examination by 

 competent observers, who have no hobby to ride, and 

 whose results, I have reason to hope, will be made 

 public before many months. In the mean time, I 

 commend Dr. Meyer's methods to the attention of 

 ambitious young geologists as a conspicuous example 

 of 1 how not to do it.' E. W. Hilgard. 



Berkeley^Cal., Eec. 15. 



A new meteoric iron from West Virginia. 



In your last issue appears a communication 

 entitled ' A new meteoric iron from West Virginia,' 

 in which a meteorite said to have been found near 

 Charleston. Kanawha county, W.Va., is described. 



The writer is evidently not aware that this same 

 piece of iron was described in a paper read at the 

 meeting of the American association for the advance- 

 ment of science, held at Ann Arbor in August last. 

 The transactions of that session are not yet pub- 

 lished, but the title of the paper above mentioned 

 was noticed in Science, vi. No. 136, p. 222, Sept. 

 11, and in the American journal of science, xxx. 

 No. 178, p. 326, October, 1885. No mention would 

 be made of this oversight if the iron were correctly 

 described, but several inaccuracies demand attention. 

 When the paper was prepared, the only information 

 at jny command was that furnished me by Dr. H. G. 

 Torrey, and was simply this : that the iron had been 

 sent to-him from Charleston, Kanawha county, W.Va., 

 by Major Delafield Du Bois, who wished to have it 

 assayed. The major had received it from parties 

 who thought it precious metal of some kind. 



Since this first report was made, Major Du Bois 

 has looked up the matter more thoroughly, visiting 

 the true locality, and making many inquiries. At a 

 meeting of the New York academy of sciences, Nov. 

 30, the writer read a paper, announcing the full par- 

 ticulars of the finding. Owing to press of matter, 

 this paper will not appear in the American journal of 

 science until February, and in the New York academy 

 proceedings as customarily published. I then an- 

 nounced the true locality to be Jenny's Creek, — a 

 fork of the Big Sandy Eiver, 15 miles from the 

 Chatteroy railroad, 35 miles from Louisa. Ken- 

 tucky, and 38 miles from Wayne Court-house, 

 Wayne county, W.Va., not Kanawha county, as 

 formerly announced. Your correspondent says, " Of 

 its chemical constitution and the circumstances of its 

 fall, we are quite ignorant." He further asserts that 



