Review of Recent Geological Literature. 387 
uses his tools. Should we paraphrase the sentence just alluded to. 
and sajf that "his tools are the bane of the cafpenter," we would be 
generally regarded as talking at random. We have identically the 
same conditions. There are but few of us that could be induced to 
Iielieve that progress is possible along any such lines. It is not the 
use of rational 'nomenclature but the constant abuse of it that causes 
widespread irritation among scientists. 
The second sentence quoted appears to apply too truly to Kan- 
sas to have it emanate from professor Haworth. It has been with 
keen regret that geologists have witnessed how professor Haworth 
has so persistently and perfectly ignored his predecessors in the Kan- 
sas field. In all the three volumes he has published not a single 
definite statement is gleaned that any one else had ever seen the coal 
measures of that region. No one could ever gather from rhese notes 
that such able geologists and indefatigable workers as Swallow, 
Hawn, Meek, Broadhead, Hayden, St. John, Hay, iludge or New- 
berry had ever crossed the Kansas boundaries. Yet their labors are 
vastly more important than those carried on during the past lustrum. 
Even the footnotes, with few exceptions, are manifestly merely ref- 
erences to show Haworth's "claims of priority." One cannot help 
concluding from these writings that there was certainly "an investi- 
gator in a new field." 
In this connection we cannot gloze it over "on account of an 
inexcusable ignorance of the subject at hand on part of the writer." 
We cannot but feel that a gross injustice has been done not only to 
the earlier writers, by ignoring completely their work, much of it far 
superior to that done to-day, but also to the geologists now actively 
interested in the region, who have no means of connecting the results 
of the pioneers with those lately added. These pioneers are worthy 
of better treatment. If ever there was a proper place to bring togeth- 
er all the results accomplished in Kansas it was in connection with 
the work under consideration. The contrast is enormously accentu- 
ated by the careful efforts of Prosser, who has published some of his 
results in the same volumes, and who has so correlated tlie earlier 
work as to increase its value ten-fold, at the same time vastly illumin- 
ating his own. 
Little need be said of professor Haworth's arrangement of the 
terranes that he recognizes. A classification based solely upon "con- 
venience" cannot endure. The many incongruities arising from 
grouping upon this principle are only too apparent. These may be 
considered in another connection, and so passed over here. 
The remarks on priority show a marvelous inappreciation of the 
common canons of nomenclature. Yet this is not wholly unexpected 
when we consider in what a baneful light all terminology is held by 
the Kansan author. If some of the ordinary rules of the use of 
terms had even a slight consideration many of the formidable diffi- 
culties raised by professor Haworth would have been easily dispelled 
before they appeared. The general statements regarding the use of 
