114 
write as long as I live, in spite of all 
such mean attempts against my re- 
putation and exertions, trusting in 
the justice of liberal men. Such for 
instance, as the reviewer of Lea’s 
shells in the same Journal of Geo- 
logy, for June; whoever he is, I am 
thankful to him for having properly 
noticed my labors on some shells 
which Lea had neglected or named 
over again. The wonder is, how 
this learned and candid review got 
alongside of the other, to which it is 
a perfect contrast. 
> C. S. Rafinesque. 
10. On the ealse Rhinoceroides 
oe Featherstonaugh and Har- 
lan. 
To dispel errors and to evince 
truth is the duty of every genuine 
natural enquirer. 
In the first No. of the Journal of 
Geology for July, 1831, the leading 
article is the description of a presum- 
ed jaw-bone, of which a new G. is 
made and figured, being called lihi- 
woceroides Meghaniensis. This is 
the only fossil described by the edi- 
tor, and was not even found by him. 
When this jaw-bone was exhibited 
to a large class, as a great geological 
discovery of the Lecturer, nay, the 
only one he could boast of; I did not 
venture to contradict the assertion, 
supported as it was by the authority 
of Dr. Harlan, whatever were my 
doubts; but I merely ventured to 
state that if it was a fossil cast of 
grit-stone, it was a great anomaly, 
and to insinuate that whereas there 
was no proof of the animal having 
had a nasal horn like the rhinoceros, 
the name intended, did not well ap- 
ply, and ought to be changed into 
Tropodon , meaning teeth like a keel. 
This suggestion was not well receiv- 
ed nor attended to. 
In my visit to Baltimore, in June 
last, after Mr. F. had proved hostile 
tome, I ascertained, in conversation 
with my old friend Mr. Hayden, one 
of the first. Dentists and Geologists 
of our country, that this jaw-bone 
had been exhibited to him, and his. 
opinion asked; when he candidly 
stated to Mr. F. that it could not be 
a fossil remain, because the apparent 
sutures were notin the proper places 
nor directions, and the teeth had no 
traces of roots nor sockets, besides 
other osteological reasons of less mo- 
ment. 
This was before his publication, 
and he had the benefit of this pre- 
vious advice, which he neglected; 
choosing rather to believe Dr. Har- 
lan, who concurred with him in opi- 
nion, to deem it a fossil, and thus 
make out a grand discovery. I have 
since heard that other Geologists in 
New- York, were of the same belief 
as Mr. Hayden, and laughed at Mr. 
F.’s pretended discovery, and jaw- 
bone of Grit. 
In fact, the anomalous nature of 
the specimen, and its obscure geolo- 
gical site, ought to have corroborated 
this doubt. It is sufficient to refer 
to Mr. F. ’s own description to per- 
ceive it. He says, 
66 The anomalous character of this 
fossil, made me hesitate to publish 
it. The mineral composition of the 
fragment is very anomalous. There 
is nothing of the nature of bone about 
it, except the form. The whole sub- 
stance; the two teeth included, being 
an aggregate of small quartzose par- 
ticles or Grit. It was found in a soil 
either alluvial or diluvial. It is of a 
doubtful but ancient age,” &c. &c. 
Thus this jaw-bone is nothing 
more than an adventitious fragment 
of Stone, with the singular peculi- 
arity of two projections like teeth on 
it: which Dr. Harlan made out to 
be like a Rhinoceros’ ! 
If Mr. F. had travelled in the Al- 
leghany mts. he would have known 
that such singular fragments are not 
uncommon, and he would have pick- 
ed up, many petrified hams or legs 
of mutton, or monkeys’ heads, or 
snakes, &c., as well as rhinoceros’ 
without horns! 
If he had studied our mountain 
grits and sandstones, he could have 
seen that all the fossils and casts or 
moulds in it, are of the oldest marine 
