The Mesozoic Series of New Mexico. — Marcou. 217 
Marcou's so-called Jurassic to be Cretaceous ;" and seventeen 
years later his full "Geological Report," with eight plates of 
fossils, no geological map, 4to, Washington, 1876. 
There are curious paragraphs in those two reports. In the 
resume we read : "At Galisteo I found upper and lower Creta- 
ceous rocks beautifully exposed, and in the lower Cretaceous 
sandstone (Jurassic of Marcou) dicotyledonous leaves" "The 
(true) Jurassic may be in New Mexico, but we have not yet 
detected it. Marcou's Jurassic is certainly not so." "Near 
Galisteo in the yellow sandstone specifically noticed by Mr. 
Marcou and regarded by him as Jurassic and identical with 
that of the Llano (Estacado), I found impressions of 
dicotyledonous leaves, which proves it to be Cretaceous." To 
sustain such sweeping assertions contrary to my careful ob- 
servations about Galisteo, Dr. Newberry has not given a 
•geological map of the vicinity of Galisteo nor even of any part 
of the Rio Grande del Norte valley, nor a single section ; nor 
has he located with any degree of accuracy a single spot of the 
vicinity of Galisteo, and what is more he has never figured, 
described, or even named a single dicotyledonous leaf. 
I found the Cretaceous rocks at Galisteo in 1853, and I gave 
a geological map, scale 1 : 900,000, with a tolerably exact distri- 
bution of the Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triasgic, and Carboniferous 
systems, between Santa Fe, Pecos village and Galisteo. I 
pubhshed with goodfigures two Cretaceous fossils, found north 
and west of Galisteo : FU/chodus whippleV and Inoceramus 
lerouxi. After finding for the first time in the United States 
the Jurassic system with characteristic Jurassic fossils : 
Gryphoea dilatata var. tuc^imcarii and Ostrea marshii^ in 
'Dr. Newberry in his description of Ptijchodus whipplei (Explor. 
Exped. from Santa Fr to junction of Grand and Green Wrers, p. 138,) 
says: The 0»trea of whicli Mr. Marcou speaks as occurring with Pt. 
whipplei'is not O. congesfa, as he supposes, but O. Ivguhris of Conrad. 
The phice of O.congesta is a little higher in the series. Grgphaa pitcheri 
is found a few feet below." Every one of these statements is errone- 
ous. It was ISIr. Hall and not I, who described and figured the Ostrea 
congesta {Pacilic R. R. Explor. vol. iii. p. 100). I do not refer or speak 
of 0. congesta in my Geology of North America, where are de'-cribed my 
Cretaceous fossils. The Ostrea congesta described by Mr. Hall, was 
found by me at the same horizon and the same bed as Pt. whipplei; 
and the'G. pitcheri knmd a few feet below, is a Gryphua which has 
nothing to do with the G. pitcheri of the Neocomian of the Indian terri- 
tory. A few pages before, p. 122, Meek in describing the Cre'aceous 
fossils collected by Dr. Newberry, snys that tlie Lower Division 
(=Dakota group) contains Ammonites percarinatus. Exogyra, Gryph.ra 
'^undetermined fragments), and leaves of Salix, Platanus, Quercus, in 
