396 The American Geologist. June, 1895 
used. It is said, also, on jnige 919, "The preceding list of genera has 
been prepared for this place for the most part by W. li. Scott." 
It will be H'adily seen from the above quotations that by the right of 
priority, the name Palo Duro cannot be used for these beds, for I had 
already described them under the name Goodnight division; I found the 
beds, collected the fi^ssils, and gave the name to beds occupying a defi- 
nite horizon with sufficient particularity for identification. All this was 
done months before the name Palo Duro was suggested bj' Prof. Scott, 
who has never been at the type locality, has never seen anj' of the fos- 
sils from there unless he saw those I collected, nor has he ever given a 
description of thestrata composingthe divisions, nor has he given a defi- 
nite description of the locality of the beds. 
There are several other errors in Prof. Scott's paper. The fossils 
were not found by Cope, they are not Loup Fork. They were not found 
near Palo Duro canon. The fossils were found by myself. The beds are 
above the Loup Fork. The3- do not occur on Palo Duro caiion, but on 
Mulberr}' canon, which is not even a branch of the Palo Duro, and the 
beds described, so far as known, do not occur within ten miles of any 
part of Palo Duro canon, and it would be a misnomer to call them by 
that name. The name Palo Duro for these beds must give place to 
Goodnight, the one first used by myself in describing them, notwith- 
standing the fact that the attempt has been made to substitute one for 
the other in the "Manual of Geology" by Dana. If priority is not to 
control then utmost confusit)n will be the result. W. F. Cummins. 
Oeological Survey of Texan. 
Stages of Recession of the Nokth American Ice-Sheet shown by 
Glacial Lakes. During the past year this magazine and the Ameri- 
can Journal of Science have presented numerous papers by Mr. F. B. 
Taylor and Prof. J. W. Spencer, describing the evidences of Pleistocene 
bodies of water in the basins of the great Laurentian lakes, marked by 
ancient shore lines from near the present lake levels up to maximum 
bights of 500 to 000 feet or more. The extensive submergence, follow- 
ing the period of deposition of the boulder-clay or till, is ascribed by 
these authors to depression of the St. Lawrence drainage area so low as 
to admit the sea to the limits defined by the highest beaches. The al- 
ternative view, which attributes the Pleistocene shore lines to lakes 
dammed on the north and northeast by the receding ice-sheet, is held 
by Gilbert, Chamberlin, Leverett, and others, including the pre.sent 
writer; but it has hud scanty advocacy in the American Geologist 
while these articles by Taylor and Spencer have been aiipearrng. 
Another recent writer. Prof. A. C. Lawsoii, from his examination of the 
shore lines about the north side of lake Superior, concludes that they 
were formed by a lake; but he supposes its existence to have been due to 
land barriers, not to the waning ice-sheet. In the American Journal of 
Science, however, for last January, I have endeavored to give a sum- 
mar}' of the evidence for the origin of all the ancient high shores about 
the Laurentian lakes bv the obstruction of the continental ulacier dur- 
