386 The American Geologist. June, i89i 
But space will not here permit a defense of ray major taxonomy. As 
has been indicated, my paper was but a part of a more extended discus- 
sion to appear in a forthcoming bulletin of the U. S. Survey, and I shall 
have to be content to let the case rest until this paper is published. The 
object of my article was to emphasize points of agreement as to actual 
rock successions in the Lake Superior region; the object of this note is 
to show that Dr. Lawson and I are mainly in harmony in this respect. 
In the matter of major taxonomy it is evident that there is a difference 
of opinion. It is a case of disagreement as to what will best advance 
the geology, not only of the Lake Superior region, but of America as a 
whole. C. R. VanHise. 
Madison, Wis., May 9, 1891, 
The Appropriation for the Missouri survey. I notice on p. 270 
of your issue for April, that you spoke of an appropriation of $40,000 
per year being made for this survey. I have seen this statement in 
other publications and do not know exactly how it arose. The appro- 
priation which has been made for us is $40,000 for two years, and we 
have to defray the expenses of publication out of this, so that this is 
altogether a moderate sum, I agree with you that a small and contin- 
uous appropriation is a desideratum for the future, and I recognize that 
we cannot expect to secure large appropriations for many years in suc- 
cession. There is, however, certain fundamental work yet to be done 
in this state, which I wish to push to completion as soon as possible; 
after this is done, the small continuous appropriations will be all that 
is necessary, it seems to me, to maintain the survey as an efficient or- 
ganization. Arthur Winslow. 
Jefferson City, April 13, 1891. 
Dr. Carpenter's reply to Mr. S. A. Miller. 
The American Geologist for July, 1890, contains two letters by Mr. 
S. A. Miller of Cincinnati, in reference to a review of his "North Ameri- 
can Geology and Palaeontology " which had appeared in the Annals 
and Magazine of Natural History for the previous April. Mr. Miller 
was not pleased with this review, which he called " a false, malicious 
and libellous article," and he wrote a letter about it to the editor of the 
Annals. But instead of sending it direct to them, he asked Messrs. 
Dulau of London, who had purchased some copies of his book, to for- 
ward it to him. The terms of the letter, which was subsequently pub- 
lished in your columns, were somewhat violent ; and as Messrs. Dulau 
desired to keep out of other people's quarrels they returned the letter 
to Mr. Miller, and advised him to send it direct to the editors of the 
Annals. This, however, he neglected to do, and yet he now states that 
the letter was returned to him "with a refusal to publish it ;" while he 
further comments on the "disingenuous management" of the Annals, 
and "its subserviency to those nearest home." These statements, like 
many others which Mr. Miller has made, have no foundation in fact. 
For his letter never reached the editors of the Annals at all : and he 
cannot therefore have any grounds of complaint against them about it. 
