1881 . J 
245 
[Wadsworth. 
It should be understood that the writer rejects the common 
lithological method that Mr. Merrill seems to be using and 
expects the writer’s work to conform to. This method can best 
be characterized, in a homely way, by supposing that there were 
placed in the hands of a zoologist a great number of specimens 
of one species of some carnivorous animal, in every condition, 
from a fresh state to that of an advanced stage of decomposition ; 
also of those of the same species that had lived during distinct 
periods of time, as well as of those that had lived for different 
lengths of time. With these, too, let there be given to the zool- 
ogist a number of packages of the bones of this animal, part of 
the bones having been worn and part unworn. 
Now imagine this zoologist naming as new species, every speci- 
men more decomposed than a preceding one ; as new species, 
those which showed different products of decomposition; as new 
species, those that gave any variation, through that decomposi- 
tion, upon chemical analysis ; as for instance, one and forty-seven 
one hundredths, or even forty-six one hundredths of one per cent, 
for which the reader is referred to Mr. Merrill’s paper. Continuing, 
let it be supposed that our zoologist makes new species, or at least 
varieties, out of all specimens in which he finds any teeth or bones 
of other animals which have been swallowed, changing the sjDecies 
or variety as often as the inclosed fragments differ ; creating new 
species out of all that have lived for different lengths of time ; new 
species out of those whose bones are fractured crosswise, as dis- 
tinct from those whose bones are broken lengthwise ; new species 
out of the distinct packages of fragments ; new species according 
as these fragments are worn or angular. Also, above and beyond 
all, fixing an arbitrary date, and demanding that all the speci- 
mens of this animal, that had existed prior to that time, should 
be held as distinct species and in general of different origin from 
those that were of a later period. Suppose too, that in addition, 
our zoologist should advocate that a part or the whole of the 
specimens submitted to him were made out of the remains of their 
defunct ancestors by a species of fermentation. Also that this 
creative chemical action was brought about by the deposition of 
the more recent remains upon the older, and that then the older 
forms successively came from beneath, and lay down on top, thus 
