Marcou.] 
84 
[Nov. 7, 
by Mr. C. H. Hitchcock with remarks by Mr. Billings, not compli- 
mentary to those who had made use of palaeontological evidence, 
in working on the Vermont stratigraphy. Mr. Hitchcock, in quot- 
ing “ Palaeozoic fossils,” Vol. i of the Canada survey, does not give 
the date of printing and publication, which is 1865 ; that is to say, 
four years later than Mr. Billings’ paper of the 21st of Nov., 1861, 
making it a material impossibility for Mr. Hitchcock to use that 
volume in his Vermont reprint. Besides, Mr. Billings has taken 
care to state in one place in the volume, which has escaped en- 
tirely the attention of Mr. Hitchcock, that u the first twenty-four 
pages were reprinted with the following alterations. The notes on 
pages 10, 11 and 12 of the original are withdrawn.” In fact those 
twenty-four pages have been so altered, that it is a new paper en- 
tirely different from the pamphlet of 1861, with new names, new 
figures, suppression or additions of many paragraphs, changes in 
the synonymy of species, and finally an addition of a new species. 1 
Mr. Hitchcock will find the notice referred to on p. 419, appendix. 
So Mr. Billings, although suppressing the footnote in 1865, has 
taken great care to notice it ; while four years before Mr. Hitch- 
cock suppressed it in his Vermont reprint without any notice, 
showing the truth of what I have said, “we see that the Geology 
of Vermont cannot be quoted as priority for the papers of Barrande 
and Billings nor even as an exact reprint, being both defective in 
regard to titles and contents.” 
VERMONT HISTORY OF THE TACONIC SYSTEM. 
Mr. Hitchcock takes exception to what I say about his history 
of the Taconic system as being “ full of reticence and even op- 
position.” A few quotations will sustain my remarks. Geology 
of Vermont , p. 436 : “ But throughout Canada, where Professor 
Emmons finds many Taconic rocks, Logan finds nothing lower than 
lower Silurian. Many have supposed that great aid was given by 
these discoveries (numerous primordial forms at Pointe Levis) to 
the advocates of the Taconic system ; but there is surely little com- 
fort to them in Sir William’s conclusions. Prof. Jas. Hall op- 
x The addition of Archceocyathus profundus, and the suppression of A. Minganensis , 
with additions of whole paragraphs to Protozoa and to genus Archseooyathus obliged 
Billings to make room; and he suppressed the obnoxious footnote. But unwilling to 
lose such an important document as the letter of Mr. C. H. Hitchcock, he retained it 
and has it reprinted in his “Remarks on the Taconic controversy ,, (‘Canadian Natural- 
ist,’ April, 1872, page 11 separate). 
