220 report of the amekican committee. 
Note on Mr. Walcott's Conclusions. 
BY THE REPORTER. 
The report on the Lower Paleozoic is based on such facts and 
opinions as were available at the time it was necessary to present 
it to the American Committee. Its recommendations, so far as 
they relate to the use of the term Taconic, assumed that Mr. 
Walcott's conclusions, since published, would be consistent with 
his former recommendations, and with the facts which he has 
more recently brought to light. But, owing to the reversal by 
him of his conclusions on the propriety of using the term Ta- 
conic, it becomes desirable to consider his new views, and the 
reasons he assigns for his change of opinion. 
He says (foot-note to p. 232, Am. J. S., March, 1888) that 
"the field-work of the latter part of the season of 1887 nega- 
tived and rendered obsolete several of the conclusions that he had 
before arrived at." 
A careful examination of his late paper shows this new evi- 
dence to consist of the discovery of second fauna fossils on the 
west side of Mt. Anthony and in its vicinity, " on the line of 
strike of the Taconic range." They had already been discovered 
by Messrs. Wing, Dana and Dwight on the western side, and by 
himself on the eastern side, at points further north and south, 
and had been given their full significance in the writings of Prof. 
Dana. But this late discovery is " within the typical Taconic 
area." 
Aside from this no facts are stated not previously known to 
Mr. Walcott; and with slight exceptions they had all previously 
been published by him. He does not specify any conclusions 
previously held by him that have been rendered obsolete by such 
new evidence: neither is there given in any of his former papers 
any conclusion that is reversed by this new evidence. Yet, in 
spite of similar facts long known, and the interpretation put on 
thetu by Prof. Dana, Mr. Walcott held in August, 1887, an 
opinion exactly the reverse, on the main issue, from that which 
he held in November of the same year, and which he has now 
set forth. 
What may have been the other considerations which have thus 
induced Mr. Walcott to reverse his opinion he does not state. 
He simply repeats various criticisms which have been made before 
