Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

To any contributor, on request in advance, one hundred copies of the issue containing his article will be sent without charge. More copies will be supplied at about cost, also if ordered in advance. Reprints are not supplied, as for obvious reasons we desire to circulate as many copies of Science as possible. Authors are, however, at perfect liberty to have their articles reprinted elsewhere. For illustrations, drawings in black and white suitable for photoengraving should be supplied by the contributor. Rejected manuscripts will be returned to the authors only when the requisite amount of postage accompanies the manuscript. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer; not necessarily for publication, but as a guaranty of good faith. We do not hold ourselves responsible for any view or opinions expressed in the communications of our correspondents. Attention is called to the "Wants" column. It is invaluable to those who use it in soliciting information or seeking new positions. The name and address of applicants should be given in full, so that answers will go direct to them. The "Exchange" column is likewise open.

BOGDANOV ON THE PRIMITIVE RUSSIANS.

BY JOHN BEDDOE, LL.D, F.R.S.

THE Anthropological Congress lately held at Moscow, however much its attractions and its attendance may have been diminished by the cholera scare, has at least produced one very notable and interesting paper-that by the veteran Professor Anatole Bogdanov, entitled "Quelle est la race la plus ancienne de la Russie centrale?" In it Bogdanov recalls the fact that twenty-five years have elapsed since he published his first researches into the subject on which he now delivers a fairly matured opinion. During a great part of the interval he has been laboring in this field and collecting material, not from the centre only, but from all parts of Russia, though at times he seems to have abandoned the effort for a while in a kind of despair.

His earlier researches led him to form the opinion that the kurgans (tumuli) of central Russia, believed to date from the ninth up to even the fifteenth century, contained the remains of two races, one dolichocephalic, tall and strongly made, with light-brown hair, the other smaller, with short, broad head and dark-brown hair. The former he found preponderated in the earlier kurgans, and in the south-western part of the central provinces, the latter at later dates and more to the north-east. In spite of the mode of location, but in accordance with the apparent dates, those who considered these facts mostly agreed that the dolichocephals were of Finnish kindred, Merians probably, and that the shorter heads belonged to the Slavs who invaded and incorporated them.

Later discoveries and the products of a wider field do not, in Bogdanov's opinion, confirm this view. These long skulls, which, though the occiput projects considerably, have usually well-developed frontal regions, and are by no means of low type, are found to prevail in the older interments throughout the west and south as well as the centre of Russia, while short heads abound in the north and east, in the ancient kurgans of the Uralian region and in those of the Bashkir territory. Bogdanov inclines to the opinion of Poesche, that the Slavs "descended in reality from a dolichocephalic source." And, seeing that the modern Slavs are on the whole moderately brachycephalic, he thinks that the prevailing form has somewhat changed through contact and crossing with races having broader heads (meaning probably the Mongoloid races which lie and have lain to the east of them), but also owing to the operation of other (external) causes. "With the progress of civilization," he says, "begins another series of influences, which has played a great part in the history of peoples, and may play a still greater one in the future, because the conditions of civilization bring about necessarily in the course of time an increase of brachycephalism. . . . Dolichocephalism declines more and more in Europe, and the heads become larger and finer."

Thus does Bogdanov range himself on the side of the short heads in the curious controversy which is arising in Europe as to the relative merits of the two leading forms of cranium, and to which Obedenare, Laponge, and Von Ammon have contributed both facts and opinions. I recollect asking Professor Rokitansky, five and thirty years ago, whether the Czechs were not brachycephalic. Rokitansky was himself a Bohemian, and he was evidently nettled by a question which he thought touched upon a weak point in his fellow-country men. "Ah! well!" he said, "they are a very clever people for all that." On the other hand, Messrs. Jacobs and Spielmann, in their recent paper on the physical characters of British Jews, almost apologized for the long-headedness (in a physical sense) of the Sephardim, as a mark of inferiority! Since Topinard claimed the Aryan language as the original property of the short-headed Kelto-Slavo-Galcha family, their congeners have taken heart, and threaten to push us long-heads from our stools of conceit.

Whence came these aboriginal dolichocephals of Russia?". Not from Asia or the Caucasus," says Bogdanov. "It is more likely that they came from the Danube, where we find at present dolichocephaly predominant (in Bulgaria]. They probably followed the Dnieper into White Russia, thence to Novgorod and into Sweden. This was the northward stream. About the same time there was probably an eastward current through Minsk to Yaroslav and Moscow, and a western one by Galicia, the Vistula, and the Danube."

[blocks in formation]

A "TYPE SPECIMEN" is the specimen of an insect from which the original describer drew up the first description of a species; and it is often of great importance to settle disputed points of nomenclature, where any doubt exists respecting the actual identification of a species; for if we are certain that we have the original specimen before us, no further dispute is possible. A "typefigure" is the figure quoted by the original describer as illustrating his species, or is a figure supposed to represent the species published by a later author.

This appears plain enough; but in practice it is not always satisfactory. The specimens described by the older authors, such as Linné and Fabricius, are not always in existence, and in other cases it is not always certain that the specimens in various old collections supposed to represent the types of these authors are actually the real specimens which they described. Again, Linné frequently quoted several figures of different species as illustrating one of his species; and, in several other cases, he seems to have described quite different species in his successive works. Under these circumstances it does not follow that a specimen, even if ticketed by Linné himself, is necessarily the species which he originally described. Some of the later authors, too, such as Müller and Hontheim, have figured insects as species of Linné, and applied wrong Linnean names to their figures in the most reckless manner. In the case of Fabricius, we already meet with far more careful and conscientious work; and when Fabricius describes an insect from a known locality, there is often very little doubt about what he really intended. But his names, too, were frequently misapplied by his contemporaries; and it is only lately that several in sects which he described from India, but which his contemporaries mistook to refer to European species more or less resembling them, have been correctly identified. Gross errors, too, have been committed by certain recent authors who have found specimens of insects supposed to have been named by Fabricius in old collections, and have jumped to the conclusion that they were bis original types, though neither the locality nor the description may have applied to them at all. This does not apply to collections indubitably referred to by Fabricius, such as the Banksian and Hunterian, which may usually be regarded as authoritative.

Again, some authors have cared more for the condition of their specimens than for scientific accuracy, and may in some cases have actually got rid of their own types and replaced them with better specimens, possibly of a different species more or less re

sembling the real one; this, apart from errors or transposition of labels, to which accidents all collections are more or less liable, in proportion to their age.

While, therefore, fully admitting the great value of a type, or type-figure, it is necessary to ascertain that it is really the specimen or represents the specimen originally described. If it contradicts the original description in any important respect, and especially if it is an insect known to be from a different locality to that assigned to it by the original describer, it is more than probable that it is not the original type at all, and is worse than misleading. Errors of locality are always possible; but much will depend on the author. Donovan, for instance, was extremely careless about localities, but, as he figured all his species, this matters less; on the other hand, Fabricius was far more careful than later authorities have given him credit for; and an error of this kind in his work was quite exceptional.

THE CONVEX PROFILE OF BAD-LAND DIVIDES.
BY W. M. DAVIS, HARVARD COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,

MASS.

frost melts. The movement of the parts is then not inward at a normal to the surface, but vertically downwards, or even downwards along the slope. As the two motions do not counterbalance each other, a slow down-hill resultant remains. This is greatest near the surface, where the dilatations and contractions are greatest; but it does not cease even at a depth of several feet, perhaps of many feet. Hence the down-hill dragging of old-weathered rock. often well shown in fresh railroad cuttings in non-glaciated regions. I presume all this is familiar to most readers; although from the frequent inquiry concerning the means by which valleys are widened it is evident that the creeping process is not so generally borne in mind as that by which running water washes loose material down-hill.

The form assumed by the surface of the land depends largely on the ratio between the processes of washing and creeping. Wherever the concentration of drainage makes transportation by streams effective, the loose material is so generally carried away (except on flood-plains) that the action of creeping is relatively insignificant But on divides, where drainage is not concentrated but dispersed, the ratio of creeping to washing is large, even though the value of creeping is still small. This is especially the case in regions of loose texture and of moderate rainfall; that is, in typical bad-lands, where the supply of loose surface-material ready to creep is large, and where the loose material is slowly taken away by washing. On the divides of such regions, the surface form is controlled by the creeping process. -are The sharp

Is Mr. Gilbert's analysis of land sculpture, constituting chapter V. of his "Geology of the Henry Mountains," he explains why the surface of an eroded region possesses slopes that are concave upwards and steepest near the divides, and shows that it is for the reasons there stated that mountains- that is, mature and wellsculptured mountains, such as are of ordinary occurrence steepest at their crests (p. 116). The arêtes of the Alps illustrate this perfectly. Gilbert calls this generalization the "law of divides."

But in discussing the forms assumed by eroded bad-lands, or arid regions of weak structure with insignificant variety of texture, he finds an exception to the law of divides. The two lateral concave slopes of a bad-land ridge do not unite upwards at an angle, forming a sharp divide, but are joined in a curve that is convex instead of concave upwards. "Thus in the sculpture of the bad lands there is revealed an exception to the law of divides,— an exception which cannot be referred to accidents of structure, and which is as persistent in its recurrence as are the features which conform to the law,- an exception which in some unex plained way is part of the law. Our analysis of the agencies and conditions of erosion, on the one hand, has led to the conclusion that (where structure does not prevent) the declivities of a contiauous drainage-slope increase as the quantities of water flowing over them decrease; and that they are great in proportion as they are near divides. Our observation, on the other hand, shows that the declivities increase as the quantities of water diminish, up to a certain point where the quantity is very small, and then decrease; and that declivities are great in proportion as they are near divides, unless they are very near divides. Evidently some factor has been overlooked in the analysis, a factor which in the main is less important than the flow of water, but which asserts its existence at those points where the flow of water is exceedingly small, and is there supreme" (pp. 122, 123).

It has for some time seemed to me that the overlooked factor is the creeping of the surface soil; and, as I have not seen mention of this process as bearing on the form of the crest-lines of divides, a brief note on the subject is here offered.

The superficial parts of rock-masses are slowly reduced to rockwaste or soil by the various processes included under the term, weathering. Unconsolidated materials are in the same way reduced to finer texture near their surface. The loose and often fine material thus provided at the surface is carried away by various processes, of which the chief are moving water, moving air, and occasionally moving ice; but there is an additional process of importance, involving dilatation and contraction of the soil, and in consequence of which not only the loose particles on the surface are transported, but a considerable thickness of loose material is caused to creep slowly down-hill.

Dilatation is caused by increase of temperature, by increase of moisture, and by freezing. Vegetable growth may probably be added to this list. The movements are minute and slow. They are directed outwards, about normally to the surface. Contraction follows dilatation, when the soil cools or dries, or when its

edged divides, that should certainly appear if washing alone were in action, are nicely rounded off by the dilatations and contractions of the soil along the ridge-line. The result thus determined by the slow outward and downward movements of the particles might be imitated in a short time by a succession of light earthquake shocks.

Mr. Gilbert has himself given several beautiful illustrations of the close dependence of sharp or rounded divides on rainfall; structure remaining constant. If the rainfall should increase in bad-land regions, would not all their divides become sharper; and if the rainfall were continuous, so as to carry away every loose particle as soon as it is loosened, would not the divides assume the sharp ridge-line expected from Mr. Gilbert's analysis but not found in the actual arid bad-land climate? In the eastern and well-watered part of our country, I have often seen clay-banks much more sharply cut than the equally barren surface of the western bad lands; but even on clay-banks, the minute divides between the innumerable little valleys are not knife-edge sharp; they are rounded when closely looked at. Perhaps they are sharper in wet weather and duller in dry spells.

If rainfall remain constant and structure vary, then the harder the structure, the less the supply of soil for creeping and the sharper the divides; the weaker the structure, the more plentiful the supply of soil for creeping and the duller the divides. Numerous examples of this variation might be given.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Correspondents are requested to be as brief as possible. The writer's name is in all cases required as proof of good faith. On request in advance, one hundred copies of the number containing his communication will be furnished free to any correspondent. The editor will be glad to publish any queries consonant with the character of the journal.

Some Remarks on the Botanic Trinomial.

AN article in Science for September 16, signed C. H. Tyler Townsend, contains certain statements which cannot be passed, it seems to me, without some few words of discussion. It is quite evident that this article loses sight entirely of the main purpose of a biological name, and seems to imply that the name of a thing has to do with justice, right, etc. For example, I find therein the following expressions: "In no case can the name of the original erector and describer of a genus be separated therefrom without gross injustice." "There is no necessity whatever for shedding glory upon the one who has made the transfer. . . . He has no right whatever to the species." These words, "injustice," "right," belong to the field of Ethics, not that of Tax

onomy.

I shall try to consider the botanic trinomial, not from the ethical point of view as Mr. Townsend seems to have done, but from the taxonomic strictly.

We find it convenient to give a name to a plant simply because the use of the name serves to call up an aggregate of characteristics when we wish, without the necessity of detailing those characteristics. The whole matter is one of convenience simply, and a name means nothing more than this.

It has been pretty universally agreed that it is more convenient to have a binomial name than a monomial one, for by this means we are enabled easily to group our plants, the first name serving to call to mind the aggregate of characteristics of the group (genus), possessed often by many sub-groups (species), and the second those characteristics possessed to a greater or less extent by the individuals that go to make up the sub group.

So far this seems to be reasonable enough, and, following the same lines, should we choose to add a third name to our binomial, making it a trinomial, we should naturally do so for the purpose of segregating these sub-groups into still smaller ones (varieties). On this line the addition of terms might rationally be continued to the extent that the facts of observation would warrant.

But we find in the de facto botanic trinomial a mixture of two taxonomic principles, instead of the rational following out of the single line indicated by adding to the monomial the second term. Usually the third term is added as a compromise with existing fact, simply to avoid the possibility of having two homonomic binomials, and consists of the name of the person who first published the binomial. It is evident that this addition of such a third term serves a purpose only in comparatively rare cases; in the vast majority, were it not for the fear that some future comer would see fit to use the same binomial to designate another plant, it would be, as a name, useless. But at present the addition of the author's name is essentially a part of the naming of the plant.

It is this third name, and comparatively useless one, that is the cause of much of the trouble of the botanic taxonomists. Many seem to feel that this serving as a compromising tailpiece, the necessity for which it is confessedly the aim of the botanic world to do away with altogether, is an honor. And for this reason there is strife in a large class of cases as to the third naine to be added to the binomial. For consider the following specific case. Hooker and Arnott notice a plant, which, in their judgment, is a member of the large group of plants that has been called Malva. They therefore give it the binomial name Malva malachroides, and first publish the characteristics which that name is to call up. Afterward Gray considers that the plant cannot belong to the group called Malva, and so gives the same plant the name Sidalcea malachroides. More recently Greene finds that the plant can be neither a Malva nor a Sidalcea, and calls it Hesperalcea malachroides.

Now suppose we have an individual of this group and wish to give it the most convenient name. For the name of the main group undeniably it matters not which of the three names we choose; if we have had the opportunity of studying the plant carefully our choice will be determined by the observed facts and our own judgment. Personally, in the present case, I chose to call the plant Hesperalcea. For the second name there is no choice, the three authors having given it the same. (Had there been a diversity of names here, the name first given the plant would have been chosen, not because this is "just," or "right," but because by this artificial rule we obtain a permanent factor in the name, without fossilizing individual opinion at all regarding the affinities of the plant.)

We now come to the third name, only added, remember, from the fear that some one has called or will call some different plant Hesperalcea malachroides. Here custom is divided, and many would write H. malachroides, H. and A., and others H. malachroides, Greene. It is for us now to determine which of these names is the most convenient. The person to whom we wish to

I have not considered the writing of H. malachroides (H. and A.) Greene, as the parenthetical term is no more an essential part of the name than the date of publication or twenty other particulars which might occur in a monograph on the plant.

communicate the idea, H. malachroides, upon seeing the trinomial H. malachroides, H. and A., naturally turns to the works of H. and A. to find the summing up of the characters of the plant. But here he is met with an insurmountable difficulty. He can find no trace of it. Let him look for malachroides, perchance Mr. Townsend would say. But it is easily possible that H. and A. have described five species by the name of malachroides On the other hand, suppose we write H. malachroides, Greene, the person wishing to know of this plant would turn to the works of Greene and there would find the reference to Malva malachroides, H. and A, which would enable him to find the original description of the plant and thus obtain the idea which we wished to convey.

It seems plain enough then that the third name of this trinomial from the standpoint of convenience should be Greene and not H. and A..

Mr. Townsend disposes of this difficulty in the following words:

"I would write Metsgeria pubescens schrank, . . . and make no more ado or trouble about it. . . . This signifies always that the authority named described the species originally and originally proposed that name. The founder and date of the genus can be ascertained by referring to any monograph."

It is obvious on a little thought that this paragraph assumes a good deal more than the facts warrant. In the first place there certainly will be no monograph of the species named pubescens; and it is very possible that a monograph of the generic name chosen may not exist.

But it is perhaps allowable to look at these two trinomials from a slightly different point of view. Which tells the most truth ? H. malachroides, H. and A., implies that H. and A. would now choose, as we have done, the group Hesperalcea for this plant. This we have no right to imply; as a matter of fact they did choose Malva, and this is all we know or should state.

Of course, in all the preceding I have assumed that the purpose of a name is to convey from one person to another the idea of a thing, and on this hypothesis it seems to me that the conclusions arrived at are sound; but I would not wish to be understood as desiring that a name should do no more than this. If it can convey the history of the thing, well and good, as long as by trying to do this it does not entirely defeat its own purpose, as I think I have shown Hesperalcea malachroides, H. and A., would do C. MICHENER. San Francisco, Oct. 7.

Notes on the Saturniidæ, or Emperor and Atlas Moths. ALTHOUGH the family Saturniida comprises the largest and some of the handsomest of all the Lepidoptera, it is still very im perfectly known. The larvæ are mostly gregarious, and feed on trees. Many of them form cocoons, which are attached to the branches of the trees upon which they live, while others (at least in South Africa) are said to pupate in the ground. I am not certain whether it has yet been ascertained whether this latter habit has been proved to be peculiar to certain species or genera, or whether the same species may form its pupa in different ways, according to circumstances.

There is doubtless a much greater variety of these insects in tropical countries than we are at present aware of. Many of the most remarkable species are only received singly, and often remain unique in our collections for years. Collectors rarely have an opportunity of rearing them from the larvæ, even if they should meet with a brood, and many species probably feed on lofty trees, quite out of reach, while the perfect insects are nocturnal in their habits. Many of the larger, and especially the domesticated species of Saturniide from which silk is obtained in India, China, and Japan, vary very much, and this is another obstacle to their successful study. Many of these domesticated breeds, and the various wild or semi-domesticated forms allied to them have been simply named, and not described; or perhaps only the food-plants and localities have been indicated. These useless names find their way into our collections and from thence into our lists and papers, and form a wholly unnecessary element

of confusion, which should be eliminated as soon as possible, either by the actual description of the species, or by the rejection of these manuscript names. The mischievous practice of attaching names to insects without describing them has long been abandoned by lepidopterists in every branch of the study except sericiculture. W. F. KIRBY.

London, England, Sept. 25.

Destroying Mosquitoes by Kerosene.

THE reason for the existence of mosquitoes has often been asked. Some means for their destruction has, perhaps, been even more earnestly sought after. The idea that their numbers can be kept down by propagating dragon-flies does not seem to be any longer entertained; and any experiment bearing on some means for their destruction is of interest. In a late number of Insect Life, Mr. L. O. Howard publishes a note upon the use of kero ene against them, the substance of which is as follows: On the surface of a pool of water, containing about 60 square feet, he poured four ounces of kerosene. This formed a very thin oily film on the surface of the water. On the 5th of July the pool was teeming with animal life, but for the next ten days that the pool was under observation no living insects were observed. At the end of this time, a count of the insects on a small portion of the surface, from which was estimated the total number, showed 7,400,- 370 of which were mosquitoes. The observation is of interest as showing the remedy to be an effective one, and, further, that a single application of oil will remain operative for ten days or longer, although two rain storms occurred during the interval. matter is worthy of further observation and experiment. JOSEPH F. JAMES. Washington, D.C., Oct. 10.

Phonetics in Science

The

FOLLOWING almost in the "wake" of the geological wordmakers, who have apparently a dictionary of their own construction, comes another scientific writer who has decided to use the phonetic system of orthography. My attention was called to an article in a chemical journal published in this country, and almost at a glance I should have decided, had I not known the system, that the author had just finished writing a translation from the Spanish, and had his alphabet somewhat confused; for here before me was sulfate; but reading further, I should have said, perhaps, that be had just finished a German translation.

[ocr errors]

All this would have occurred to me if I had been ignorant of the existence of the phonetic system. Now, why did not this author change phenolphtalein, which appears in the article referred to? Perhaps this word does not occur in the phonetic dictionary. Is it not high time for American scientists to stop coining " words? To be sure, these words differ from the geological ones in that they come well recommended by some philologists, and then the author in this case has not been guilty of owning an "orthographic mint." Why not continue to use the good old spelling, when it answers every requirement? The only disadvantage (?) in so doing, to my mind, may be in the fact that the words are longer than those in the phonetic system, and, as the advocates of this system claim, are more difficult to spell; so they are to some people, but unless they are foreigners, one is not in the babit of meeting such scientists in every-day life. Scarcely has our American language secured a strong foot-hold than it must be changed for the benefit of a few who would receive the honors as the originators and champions of a new system of orthography. I know of one advocate (not the author, it is needless to say, of the paper in the chemical journal above referred to) who "prides himself not only upon his ability to use the phonetic system, but also upon his beautiful English." Yet this very same man habitually uses, for example, such phrases as "Ain't be funny?" Still this hardly belongs to my criticism of phonetics in science. Why not leave the phonetic system to the philologists; why incorporate it in our scientific work?

When the advocates of this system have succeeded in establishing a strong foot hold for their system, and permanency (for it)

[blocks in formation]

DR. WM. H. DALL'S contribution to Miocene literature under this head calls for some notice, were it only to thank that eminent palæontologist for correcting my mistake with regard to the Gnathodon of Pascagoula and Mobile. With his unrivalled opportunities of comparison and long experience in these studies, his determination is naturally satisfactory and final. I knew that in mollusks the young and the adult forms often differ considerably; but I knew not the life history of this one.

It is complimentary to me also that he has accepted my outline of the evolution of the Florida Peninsula,' although he probably arrived at his conclusions from different and independent sources. And I wish to correct the impression he seems to have of my notions of the genesis of the Grand Gulf. I do not say that the Pascagoula is a deep-sea formation, but speak of it as a "marine aspect" of the more intensely fresh water Grand Gulf on the Mississippi; and I do not suppose that in an estuary marine influences prevail over the fluviatile, in order to foster the life of any of the creatures that have left their remains in these calcareous clays and sands; so that it may be said to be "partially of marine genesis." The same views here expressed by Dr. Dall were indicated by myself in another paper published by the Geological Survey of Alabama on the "Nita Crevasse" in 1889, in which I speak of the progress of later formations on and in the Mississippi Sound and its older extension as presenting a marine-aspect" of the "Port-Hudson group" of Dr. Hilgard, and sufficiently different to be called the Biloxi Formation -a nomenclature I understood to have been approved by him among others. The method of genesis sketched in that paper for the Port Hudson was considered applicable to the older Post-Eocene formations of the same embayment.

66

I do not perceive, therefore, that Dr. Dall's "correction of my definition of these clays" was "required;" nor have I any to make of his, for similar views have been elaborated for the forth coming Alabama Geological Report, which will be in effect a new edition of Bulletin 37 of the United States Geological Survey.

The only criticism here to which Dr. Dall might seem amenable is a tacit endorsement of his own brochure of January last upon these same Miocene formations, in which it may be said he has permitted conjecture upon general principles somewhat to outrun and forestall positive discovery. Hasty generalization is the bane of science. The Pascagoula Clays may be equivalent to his Chesapeake, but the testimony as yet can scarcely be said to be satisfactory. Whilst he has shown the younger Miocene of northern Florida, originally named by me the Waldo Formation, phases of which are seen at White Springs, in Hamilton County, and in the overlying clays at Aspalaga on the Apalachicola River, to be Chesapeake; this surely cannot be identical with the upper layers at Alum Bluff, much less with the lower. As he himself has shown, the latter is an older Miocene, identical with that occurring on Chipola at Bailey's Bridge, and called by myself Chipola at a time when, from high water, I had not seen the Ortholax beds at Alum Bluff, and when I had not seen the perfect instance of contact and overlap presented at that place. At that time, I had previously discovered a Miocene in the vicinity of Defuniak Springs, on Shoal River, and on Alaqua River (and named it from the last), tracing it across Choctawhatchie, near Knox Hill, and across Washington County a little south of Vernon, and across Chipola at Abe Springs, eight miles south of Ten-Mile Bayou, the principal site of the older Miocene With the help of Mr. Jüssen (both of us then working with Mr. Geo. H. Eldridge on the geological

1 See Dr. J. W. Spencer's First Report of the Geological Survey of Georgia, p. 60; and short papers of my own, read severally at the meetings of the Geological Society of America, August, 1891, and August, 1892.

2 There is no fossiliferous formation at Hawthorne, nor any at Ocheesee, as Dr. Dall seems to suppose.

survey of Florida) the differences between these two formations was established, and for the younger the name of Aliqua revives. Whether this is identical with the Chesapeake and Carolinian or not is for another discussion. At the same time the same parties identified the Chattahoochee beds of Langdon, which underlie the Miocenes of Georgia and northern Florida, with the Chipola beds, and traced their continuity westward across the Choctawhatchie, until, meeting with the syncline of the great roll from Alabama, they sink out of sight under the great sand-beds which fill the depression now drained by Shool River.

The connection of these two Florida Miocenes with the eastward extension of the Grand Gulf into south Alabama is matter for field research, and cannot be decided in the closet upon general principles. Enough is certain, however, to render it clear that if it is proper to draw the line between an older and a younger Miocene in Florida, such a distinction continues westward into Alabama and Mississippi; and where can we draw it better than upon lithological grounds between the water-holding stratified sands and sandstones of the lower Grand Gulf and those overcapping clays which, pierced at Brewton and Pallard 70 feet, at Mobile 735, at Biloxi 770, at Pearl River 800. and at New Orleans 1,200 feet, yield similar flows of water with similar clays and fossils? Of the latter I have other collections, which shall be submitted to Dr. Dall, now that I know his attention has been turned to the matter.

Upon the use of the term formation, I finally have to say that it is at least provisional, for every discoverer to name every structure he finds having peculiarities from some locality where it is prominently developed, although in the course of palæontological research many of these provisional names may disappear; and I submit that the prevailing American practice is not an abuse. For these reasons I shall still insist upon the propriety of calling the Pascagoula Clays the Pascagoula Formation. Meridian, Miss., Oct. 2.

LAWRENCE C. JOHNSON.

Jealousy in Infants.

Or my two children one is a boy of four years, the other a girl of ten months. The boy has just returned home after an absence of some months. His sister displays great affection for him. She is also much attached to her nurse, more so at times apparently than to any other member of the household.

Now if, while the girl is sitting on a mat alone or on the lap of either of her parents, the nurse should take the boy upon her knee and fondle him, the girl will immediately cry out in a distressful way, in a tone not precisely indicative of anger or vexation, but more nearly similar to the tone of grief or disappointed desire. In the case described the infant will not be appeased unless the nurse puts down the boy and takes her up It will not avail for the nurse to take her up on one knee, leaving the boy on the other.

If, however, while the nurse has the infant in her arms either of the parents takes up the boy and caresses him, the girl displays only a strong interest, but no annoyance whatever.

It is evident then that the outburst of feeling in the former case was a display of jealousy. And, as the child is not precocious, it is allowable to look upon this case as an instance of ordinary mental development in children.

It is wonderful enough that infants of a few weeks or months should make unmistakable manifestations of the simpler emotions of fear, affection, and anger. But that an emotion so complex as jealousy should appear so early as at the age of ten months is especially remarkable, and indicates a degree of development at this age which, in the absence of observation, might justly be deemed incredible.

I have not by me the works of Taine, Preyer, or Perrez, and so am not able to say what observations, if any, they made in respect to this particular matter. Darwin observed jealousy in an infant of fifteen and a half months, but adds, "it would probably be exhibited by infants at an earlier age if they were tried in a fitting manner."

Arthur, Ontario, Canada.

A. STEVENSON.

Is There a Sense of Direction ?

THE recent articles in Science by Dr. Hall and Dr. Work on this subject tempt me to say that in early life I was a believer in this sense, my belief being derived from Cooper's Leather Stocking Tales and similar sources. The winter of 1855-56 was spent in what was then called "the bad-axe country" of western Wisconsin, in company with an old French-Canadian trapper, who seemed to possess this gift in a (to me) marvellous degree; and, as he boasted of it and never to my knowledge made a mistake, my belief in this sense was confirmed.

The next winter, with a very limited knowledge of the Ojibwa tongue, picked up on the Bad Axe, I went with a government survey into northern Minnesota in the capacity of interpreter. Here the subject was discussed in camp, and the sceptics proposed a test. Five Indians were blind-folded, turned around several times, and led half a mile from camp in different directions. Not one could point to the camp until the bandage was removed from his eyes, nor could they point to the north. As soon as they could see they easily found the camp, although it was in the flat, low-rolling country north-east of Crow Wing, where there are no prominent land marks to be seen from the heavy-timbered lands. On several other occasions it was found that the Ojibwa was guided by the lie of the land, as indicated by water-courses, the twist of trees as seen on stubs denuded of bark, the sun, and the many minor indications of the cardinal points that are known to expert woodsmen, both white and red. Therefore I agree with Dr. Hall that man does not possess an instinct which teaches him to find his way to a given point regardless of darkness or of previous knowledge of locality.

I cannot agree that any animal possesses this sense. If so, it would be the wild animals, whose necessities would keep the sense in training, and not those whose needs have been supplied by man. Dr. Hall cites the cat, which has been taken in a box for fifty miles and yet reached home. This may be so; but such instances, if true, are recorded as wonderful, as they truly are; while the thousands of other cats which were taken less than five miles from home and never returned are never recorded. Dr. Work mentions the many carrier pigeons which never return, and it is generally conceded that these birds depend on sight alone, their trainers taking them short distances at first, and then increasing them until they know the way to the loft.

Let us take the case of the greatest of all migrating animals, the wild goose. All of us who have seen anything of these birds

have seen them lost in a fog. Dr. Work thinks their flying at different altitudes may be determined by "the character of the upper currents," and if these currents determine the density of fogs, he is right; for on a clear day, when the geese can see many miles ahead and get a bird's-eye view of landmarks fifty miles distant, they fly very high, but let rain or mist prevail, and they drop within reach of gun-powder, because they must come near the earth to get their bearings and preserve the direction of their flight, by vision alone.

I have, among my flock of wild fowl, a pair of brant, B. bernicla (the only goose that Atlantic coast gunners call "brant," although in the West every goose is a "brant," except the Canada goose). One of these birds strayed from a flock going north in the spring of 1890, during one of the darkest of nights, when the rain came as hard as rain can come, and was captured while flying around a street-lamp in the village, thoroughly bewildered. The other was taken the same night two miles south of the village by a boy who found it on the ground. Such instances are common in every rural locality, not only with the "black brant." but with its larger relative the Canada goose as well; and if there are better navigators in the animal world who should have the sense of direction," if there is such a sense, I do not know what animals they

are.

66

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »