Barrande and the Taconic System — Marcou. 131 
vations made and published by Dr. Emmons and Jules Marcou 
on every point of American geology; and after the publication 
of the joint paper of Barrande and Marcou, they thought that 
it would be just as easy for them to continue their suppressions. 
They kept in their possession the copy of the letter of Barrande 
to Bronn during six months without a word of answer, hoping 
that the letter written in French, would be published only in 
Europe, in French or in German; and they did not fear its in¬ 
fluence here. But the publication in English of that letter 
with two others, and remarks of my own, was the beginning of 
an opposition which they did not expect, and they met it by an 
omission of my name, showing their contempt for the collabor¬ 
ator of Barrande on this side of the water. So much so, that 
Barrande in one of his letters to me, dated 27th March, 1861, 
says: “I have noticed that in the article of the Silliman's Jour¬ 
nal your name has been omitted. It is a mean act of the 
editor. 11 
At that time the number of geologists interested in the 
Taconic question was very small, only ten or twelve; two-thirds 
of whom were uncompromising adversaries of the Taconic sys¬ 
tem under any form, the very name being hateful. But now, 
and since the publication in 1885, of my paper: u The Taconic 
system and its position in stratigraphic geology 11 it is very 
different; the “elevated minds” hoped for by Barrande are 
numerous and do not fear to express openly their adhesion to 
Dr. Emmons 1 discoveries and nomenclature. The friends of the 
Taconic instead of being limited to only three or four, are now 
ten times that number, with almost all the young geologists as 
sympathizers and friends, while the adversaries have remained 
stationary, hardly being able to fill up the vacancies in their 
ranks caused by death or desertion. 
Public opinion of American geologists.— The constant and 
persistent errors of the adversaries of the Taconic are not of 
the kind always freely allowed in all geological descriptions and 
nomenclature; such for instance as the union of some subdivis¬ 
ion with one group or even a system to which it does not be¬ 
long truly; but by their nature the errors affect the whole 
classification and nomenclature of American geology. For it is 
no small concern to know, (1) whether a great fauna is above 
or below another; (2) whether twenty-five thousand feet and 
