The Texas Cretaceous. — Bfarcou. 103 
that he had found abundantly in the vicinity of New Braun- 
feld, to the G. pitcher/' of Morton. As he had the opportunity 
to show his specimens, when passing through Philadelphia in 
1847, to Dr. S. Morton, I thought he was right, and, following 
in his steps, I called the Gryphma found by me in such abund- 
ance at Fort Washita and at Comet creek Gryphaia pitcheri of 
Roemer and Morton. When endless discussions, started by 
Messrs. James Hall, Shumard, Meek, and Gabb, on the iden- 
tification of Texas Gryphaia, all referred by them to the typi- 
cal G. pitcheri, showed plainly that mistakes had been made 
all around, in order to keep intact my observations at Comet 
creek, I took care to print in a foot-note of my paper, "Notes 
on the Cretaceous and Carboniferous rocks of Texas" (Proc, 
Boston Soc. Nat. History, vol. vni, Januaiy, 1861, p. 95). 
the following remark : "Thus we shall have three species of 
Gryphaia: 1, the G. tuciim carii of the Jurassic rocks of Pyra- 
mid Mount (New Mexico) ; 2, the false G. pitcheri of Roemer 
and Marcou, or the false G. pitcheri var. navia of Conrad and 
Hall, of the Cretaceous rocks of the False Washita river 
(Texas), which may be called G. roemeri in honor of its first 
discoverer, Mr. F. Roemer; and 3, the true G. pitcheri Mor- 
ton " 
It is evident from that quotation that Dr. C. A. White 
ought to have called the Gryphaia pitcheri of Roemer, 
Gryphaia roemeri; and that his name of G. fomiculata can- 
not be accepted, according to rules of priority. American 
paleontology has been saddled with such numbers of incor- 
rect determinations of Mesozoic fossils, that if we do not re- 
turn to the question of priority, as an immutable rule, then 
nothing is left but fancy and consequently inextricable and 
systematic confusions. Happily, I have given such excellent 
figures of the Gryphaia found by me at Comet creek, drawn 
by the great fossil artist, Hubert, that doubt is not possible. 
After calling it in 1S54 and 1858 Gryphaia pitcheri, I did not 
hesitate, as far back as L861, to say that it was a new species 
which I called then Gryphaia roemeri, a determination fully 
justified since by every observer. Consequently Exogyra 
fomiculata White, not Gryphaaa as Mr. Hill says by mistake. 
has to go into synonymy and be dropped. 
The accompaning table of the growth of knowledge of the 
