358 Correspondence. 
Mountains I consider to be unjust. Looking over tlie published records 
accessible to me, including INIr. Walcott's Paleontology of the Eureka dis- 
trict, I found nothing which allowed a positive identification with the 
material before me; the majority of the described forms were only imper- 
fect fragments and of only few of them a satisfactory description of the 
entire body could be given, while the specimens from Mount Stephen were 
all nearly complete and exhibited features which I could not discover 
in the described forms. I therefore came to the conclusion that even if 
they were not all new forms as I had reason to suppose, the perfection of 
the specimens would make it any way desirable to have them accurately 
described. I did this, not however induced by a spirit of vanity claiming 
the discovery and naming of a half dozen new forms, but I simply wished 
to add without delay to the rapidly accumulating number of new facts 
concerning primordial faunas, a few more, which might help for their 
further elucidation and furnish the means for drawing analogies between 
different remote localities. I myself did at tlie moment,uot feel sufficiently 
prepared to enter into such comparative speculations and therefore re- 
stricted my communication to an unsophisticated description of what I 
saw before me. Mr. Walcott finds my determinations of the forms in qu-s 
tion generally incorrect. For two of them he claims for himself the 
priority of a description (Embolimus spinosus and Emboli mus rotun- 
datus) ; moreover he informs that the name Embolimus is already preoc- 
cupied, and proposes a name of his own. The specimens named by me 
Ogygia serrata are according to him identical with Paradoxides (Olenoides) 
nevadensis of Meek. Two forms only he allows as previously undescribed ; 
but what I happened to designate with the old fashioned name Conoce- 
phalites is for him a Ptychoparia and the very characteristic representative 
of the genus Ogygia. Ogygia klotzii bears in his critical note a mark in- 
terrogation behind the generic name. 
In rejily to this I very willingly declare, that after I saw Mr. Walcott's 
publication in the 30th Bulletin of the U. 9. Geol. Survey,! do not hesitate a 
moment to acknowledge his priority in description of the two forms which 
I had named Embolimus, but I have to remark that Mr. Walcott's paper, 
was not yet in the hands of the public at the time my manuscript was 
finished and handed over for publication to theSecretary of the Acad, of Sci. 
at Philadelphia; therefore, under the existing circumstances I was fully 
justified to consider these forms as new. 
My first impulse in selecting a name,for the two mentIonedTrilobites,was 
to pay a tribute to Mr. Walcott's merits as a paleontologist. The two forms 
although differing some in general aspect, closely resemble ea-^h other in 
the configuration of their heads and in the number of thoracic segments. 
I used therefore, for generic designation of both of them, the name Wal- 
cottia in the original manuscript, sent to the Philadelphia Academy of 
Science for publication. 
Later I happened to discover that Miller and Dyer had already preoc- 
cupied the name Walcottia for a fossil of problematic affinities and being 
compelled to substitute another name, I chose to select Embolwws, a well- 
sounding word which means a substitute, but I had bad hick in this affair, 
