As to the former greater distinction of the North and South American faunas, I think I am right. The Edentata, being proved (as I hold) to have been mere temporary migrants into North America in the post-Pliocene epoch, form no part of its Tertiary fauna. Yet in South America they were so enormously developed in the Pliocene epoch that we know, if there is any such thing as Evolution, etc., that strange ancestral forms must have preceded them in Miocene times. Mastodon, on the other hand, represented by one or two species only, appears to have been a late immigrant into South America from the North. The immense development of Ungulates (in varied families, genera, and species) in North America during the whole Tertiary epoch is, however, the great feature, which assimilates it to Europe and contrasts it with South America. True camels, hosts of hog-like animals, true rhinoceroses, and hosts of ancestral horses, all bring North America much nearer to the Old World than it is now. Even the horse, represented in all South America by Equus only, was probably a temporary immigrant from the North. As to extending too far the principle (yours) of the necessity of comparatively large areas for the development of varied faunas, I may have done so, but I think not. There is, I think, every probability that most islands, etc., where a varied fauna now exists have been once more extensive, e.g. New Zealand, Madagascar. Where there is no such evidence (e.g. Galapagos), the fauna is _very restricted_. Lastly as to want of references; I confess the justice of your criticism. But I am dreadfully unsystematic. It is my first large work involving much of the labour of others. I began with the intention of writing a comparatively short sketch, enlarged it, and added to it, bit by bit; remodelled the tables, the headings, and almost everything else, more than once, and got my materials into such confusion that it is a wonder it has not turned out far more crooked and confused than it is. I, no doubt, ought to have given references; but in many cases I found the information so small and scattered, and so much had to be combined and condensed from conflicting authorities, that I hardly knew how to refer to them or where to leave off. Had I referred to all authors consulted for every fact, I should have greatly increased the bulk of the book, while a large portion of the references would be valueless in a few years owing to later and better authorities. My experience of referring to references has generally been most unsatisfactory. One finds, nine times out of ten, the fact is stated, and nothing more; or a reference to some third work not at hand! I wish I could get into the habit of giving chapter and verse for every fact and extract, but I am too lazy and generally in a hurry, having to consult books against time when in London for a day. However, I will try and do something to mend this matter should I have to prepare another edition.