Abbildungen der Seite

rock, and are now the abode of thousands of bats, which fly about in great numbers when disturbed by the sight-seeker.

A few miles above Montezuma's castle, on the opposite bank of the creek, a conspicuous cone-like mountain rises a few hundred feet above the surrounding country. On making the ascent, the summit was found to be a narrow rim enclosing a crater some three hundred feet in diameter and with nearly perpendicular walls. Standing on the rim, one can look down a hundred feet upon the dark-blue water of a small lake in the bosom of the mountain. The lake, a hundred yards in diameter and of unknown depth, is known as Montezuma's well. In the steep sides of the crater are a number of caves, which at one time were the abode of man. A few are natural, but the greater number are the result of human effort.

The rim is crowned with the fallen walls of an ancient ruin more than a hundred feet long. Far down the mountain-side, below the level of the water in the crater, the outlet of the well flows from between an opening in the rocks. This stream is large and constant, and at present is used to irrigate a ranch in the valley below. Ages ago the builders of caves and castles utilized this same stream to irrigate portions of the neighboring rich valley.

A short distance down the valley a stone and cement ditch of pre-historic make can be easily traced for many rods. Ranchmen in building ditches frequently follow the courses of ancient ones. In July, last year, in constructing an irrigating ditch near old

[blocks in formation]

Fort Verde, on the west side of the river, the workmen found evidences of an ancient ditch buried some twelve feet below the surface. Many of the old ditches have been found upon mesas where under present conditions it would be impossible to get water to fill them. Frequently they lead from what are now dry washes which only carry water a few days at a time and then only after heavy rains. This seems to indicate that there was a time when the now dry washes carried water much more constantly than at present.

More numerous than the casa and cliff ruins are the many caves excavated from the sand and limestone cliffs along the east bank of Verde River for some miles below the old fort. At a distance the openings into the caves look like black spots on the white cliffs. They are arranged in long rows, tier above tier, and are nearly alike in structure. All are more or less inaccessible from the valley below. The entrance is an irregular arched opening about four feet high and from half to two-thirds as wide. The cave proper is about twelve feet in diameter and from four to six feet to ceiling. The room is more or less circular in outline. A rock bench from twelve to eighteen inches high occupies the cave on all sides except at the entrance. This bench is about three feet wide, and gently slopes toward the centre of the room. Charred embers, meates, grinders, broken pottery, and fragments of reed mats were scattered about or were under the heaps of débris which covered the floor. Opening into the main cave at either side and also frequently at the rear were smaller ones, which were three to five feet in diameter and about the same to ceiling. In nearly all the caves visited the floors of the smaller ones were

from one and one-half to two and one-half feet below the floor of the main room.

It is probable that the small caves were used for the storage of grains and other material. No light finds its way into the small lateral and rear caves but the little that comes in through the small openings leading to the central room. In two or three instances I found two large caves joined by a small passage-way uniting the lateral caves. Occasionally, hollowed from the wall, at one or both sides of the main entrance, some two feet above the floor, were small pocket-like cavities about twelve inches in diameter and nearly spherical in outline. The openings to them were four or five inches across, so large that one could easily reach with the hand any object that might be placed therein. Not only the floors of the caves, but in many instances the entire face of the cliffs, were covered with broken pottery, some of it of much better quality than that made by the Indians of Arizona to-day.

So far as I have had opportunity of examining, the caves of this region are much different from those in the cliffs along the Colorado River and elsewhere in the territory. Here it is evident they have been hollowed out by human effort. In other localities natural caves and large horizontal fissures in the cliffs were the homes of this early people.



THE ghost of palæolithic man has arisen to plague the geologists at Washington; and those that look upon them as little gods are all shouting "Me, too." As the cause of all this mischief, it is fitting that I should speak in my own defence. The scientific men of Washington claim a monopoly of knowledge and so occupy a peculiar position, self-assumed, of course. That which is offered the world independently of them, must be stamped by their approval or condemned, and it is never the former. This condition of affairs really handicaps them at the outset, and not one can enter the field unbiassed. Indeed, they go out instructed to bring in such and such results, and none other. This is pre-eminently so in the question of the antiquity of man in North America. The recent appearance of Wright's book, "Man and the Glacial Period," has set their pens and tongues wagging, but palæolithic man is not to be downed even by such an array of notables marshalled to defeat him. Salisbury's cunning argumentation, McGee's shaggy front, Holmes's imperious "begone!" and Brinton's persuasive smile do not make him afraid. He returned to earth in his own good time and came to stay!

Of the alleged evidences brought forward by others I have nothing to say, but something to record concerning my own investigations, that may have a bearing on the question. We must admit that, at some given day in the past, man appeared on this continent; but just when, no one has ventured to assert. Certainly in no one communication to scientific or popular literature have I done more than claim the discovery of evidence of his comparatively primitive condition when he did arrive; and now after twenty years of careful, unremitted study of the valley of the Delaware River, I see no reason to change my opinion, but a great deal to substantiate it.

Were the evidences of man's occupancy of this region one associated and confused mass, an attempt made to dissociate its components into rude and more elaborate forms and to say of the former, this is old, and of the latter, not so ancient, then the scientific world might well be up in arms and cry down the apparent absurdity but this is not the case.

[ocr errors]

Of course, if we claim, as, for instance, Mr. Holmes practically does, in spite of denial, that every so-called palæolithic implement is a "reject," whether the man who threw it aside lived in Europe or America, the whole subject falls to the ground; but accepting palæolithic man as a one-time feature of other continents, and believing no geological reasons have been brought forward why he might not have lived in North America also, it is justifiable to consider the archæological significance of such objects as the late Wyman said were not distinguishable from European forms, except by the material of which they were made.


Now, as a matter of fact, a considerable number of just such forms have been found in the gravel deposits at Trenton, N.J., and at a significant depth; but, says the geologist, what of the age of this deposit? The whole question hinges on this. Professor Salisbury asserts that since the deposit was originally laid down, it has been reassorted. Grant this, and what then? If the reassortment took place in "Indian" times, how does it happen that only this one form and simple flakes are found entombed? Holmes here steps in and says easy enough," the Indian went to the river-shore, chipped pebbles, and retired to the back country, leaving his "rejects." But are we to suppose the Indian never went to the water's edge for any other purpose? Did he not take his finished implements to the river to fish and hunt? Did he not cross the river by a raft, canoe, or by swimming? Did he necessarily always live back from the stream? Common sense points out that he must have had the whole range of his goods and chattels continually at and on the water, and are we to suppose that never a knife, arrow-point, bead, or pot was lost? It is too absurd to consider; and this reassortment of the gravel-beds must have buried a great deal more than "rejects." Again, it has been asserted that the assumed palæolithic implements are only in "talus." Carvill Lewis, according to Brinton, says what I held to be undisturbed layers, were really an "ancient talus." `Possibly, but how ancient? In at least a dozen instances this asserted old talus" was caused by floods having a transporting power equal to piling up layers alternately of sand and gravel, and then, as if to anticipate the present tempest in a tea-pot, placed a bowlder, weighing tons, over it all, for fear that the poor palæolith might run away. Now, when grooved axes and polished celts are found under like conditions, I am willing to leave the field as fast as my short legs will permit, and not before.

Professor Salisbury bas asserted that there is need of expert testimony to determine the precise age of the implement-bearing gravels, and Dr. Brinton insists that no opinion as to the geological age of a gravel can be received from any but an expert geologist. Grant it; but the trouble is these " expert geologists" are raræ aves that were never yet known to agree among themselves, and it becomes a mere matter of personal opinion after all. I lay claim to a smattering of gravel-ology. I have lived on pebbles so long that I have become flinty-hearted so far as criticism is concerned, and when I find gravel stratified and unstratified, I know and assert the difference; and when a paleolithic implement is found in gravel beneath layers of sand and pebbles, beneath huge bowlders (not merely at a lower horizon, but directly beneath them), I do not, and no reasonable person should want another to tell him that the two were laid down together, or the big bowlder was dropped upon the implement, which anticipated its coming. Up pops some "authority" and declaims the possibility that the ground was washed from beneath the big stone and the implement slipped in. Well, we can go on supposing till the crack o'doom, but as to proof, that is another matter. These geological jugglers will prove yet that the Indians bought the Delaware Valley from William Penn.

Certainly too much value is put on this matter of expert testimony. Then, again, in spite of all that has been written and said, the assertion is made that palæolithic implements are found only at the present river-shore. Of course we find them there now, because the gravel is exposed, but not there alone. A full mile back from the river they have been found in digging cellars, sinking wells, and in the cut of the Pennsylvania Railroad, east of Trenton, N.J. All this area may have been reassorted," but in such delicate fashion that the strata are not broken, and it suggests that the manner of it was like turning over a book from one cover to the other.

Again, it has been objected that no animal remains have been found; but Cook found a mastodon, and I have, more significant yet, a valve of a Unio; and what of human remains, long since reported? There are, too, at the Peabody Museum, three human crania, two of which were taken from the gravel and one found in the bed of a creek, and these three, identical in character, stand alone in a collection of nearly three thousand Indian crania.

It is the weak point of Wright's book that he did not prepare the archæological portion at the Peabody Museum, with my col

lection under his eyes. It he had, the critics would not have had a leg to stand upon.

The implements, too, speak for themselves. If "rejects" as Holmes dogmatically asserts, why is it that they were carried to the high ground, and are found to-day, solitary and alone, silent witnesses of that long ago, when it was the principal weapon of the early man who used them? And if "rejects," made at the water's edge, where are the chips resulting from their fashioning? They are not scattered broadside over the river-shore as are the implements; but we do find in spots where " rejects were made in numbers, and know the fact because of the accumulated chips. It is easy to conceive a theory and bend the facts to it; very, very easy; but the trick is found out, sooner or later. "But they show no sign of use" pipes some impatient kicker. Prove it; and does the spear or arrow point show signs of use? Of over a thousand chipped jasper scrapers in the Abbott collection at the Peabody Museum, not a half-dozen show sign of use, and the same may be said of drills.

These rude implements are made of argillite, and the use of this material was continued down to the time of European contact, being less and less used after the discovery of jasper. The magnificent results of Mr. Ernst Volk's explorations, under the direction of Putnam, in the valley of the Delaware, clearly prove this, and so substantiate what I have claimed for all these years; and is it not significant that some of the most finished specimens of palæolithic implements have been found in situ ? By what authority do the critics say they are too rude to be effective? Is any person living so in touch with primitive man to-day as to assert what he could and could not have used? It is well to bear in mind that many an undoubted Indian implement, just as rude, was used by these later people. Look at the rude spades and slightly chipped but girdled pebbles that were used as club-heads. Of course in the days of paleolithic implement-making there would be rejects," and the critic must not attempt to prove too much, because such are found, even in undisturbed gravel. Many a pebble, too. has been chipped until suggestive of an implement, by the detaching of flakes to be used as knives, as Mercer pointed out at the Rochester meeting of the A. A. A. S., and a splinter of stone was not too elaborate an implement for supposed palæolithic man to have used.


And now, in conclusion, let us remember that the native American the Indian - is a type distinct from all other peoples; let us not forget that their languages are all a purely home product, and that these facts show undeniably a necessarily long occupancy of this continent, shut out for centuries from all the world.

If he, as a fully equipped Indian, came from another region beyond the seas, his similarity to the people of that region could be traced. As it is, he came, so far as our knowledge now extends, when man over the whole world was not racially developed as now, and so, when in a comparatively primitive condition; such a condition as is suggested by the simplest of implements, whether for the chase or domestic uses. Here, in North America, this early man became a potter, invented the bow, and gradually reached that status of culture, differing in degree in different parts of the country, in which he was found by European explorers.

As a student of archæology. I submit that this occupancy of the continent commenced when there was a changing condition of the river valleys in progress; but whether that change was subsequent to the glacial epoch or during it, deponent saith not. That it was during a time when rock-transporting floods were common, I do claim. That it was when ruder than ordinary Indian implements were the common tools of the people, I do claim, for how else could only such rude forms be associated as they have been shown to be with gravels that show no evidence of disturbance except such as forces not now in operation, effected? It is true, palæolithic and Indian objects are now associated, but they are also separate and apart. What I contend for is the sequence of events of the original use of a rude weapon or tool, the one implement of that day that was manufactured, and, as time rolled on, the production of more elaborate forms, and all that pertains, the world over, to the accepted neolithic stage of human advancement.

[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.





THE necessity of establishing standards with reference to the nomenclatures of the different provinces of science has been felt for several years past, with more or less force, according to the branch concerned. In geography our own government has taken a most desirable initiative by issuing authorized lists of geographical names, the spellings of which have been the result of careful study and adherence to a few fixed general rules. Much has been done of late towards the establishment of a uniform nomenclature in geology, while the botanists assembled in an international congress this fall to grapple with their phase of the problem. In medicine the necessity of standards for uniformity in pronunciation is felt most keenly, but no decisive steps have been taken. It is by no means uncommon for students in a medical or pharmaceutical college to hear widely divergent pronunciations on the part of the corps of instructors.

The existence of these diversities, not only in medicine but also throughout the whole range of the sciences, is due chiefly to two causes. The first is the radical change which has taken place in the pronunciation of the classical tongues during the past quarter of a century, and which has naturally exerted a powerful influence on the pronunciation of naturalized Greek and Latin terms as well as of most derivatives from these languages. The second cause is to be found in the effects of Continental - i.e., French and German - usage on the constantly-growing contingent of American scientific and professional men who have studied in European universities. Involuntarily they often retain the Continental pronunciation of the vowels - especially i, in a less degree a and e, and still less o and u― in the use of words of identical or similar spelling. When this happens in the case of instructors, their usage is of course widely imitated.

Among our chemists, the need of adopting standards has been felt chiefly in the following directions.

1. The rapid extension of organic chemistry has led to the discovery of a notable array of new classes of compounds, whose existence was totally unforeseen and for whose naming, naturally, no provision was made, when about thirty years ago our otherwise admirable system of nomenclature was introduced by Hofmann and his contemporaries. This problem is, of course, one essentially international in its nature, and is now fortunately in a fair way to be solved. At the Chemical Congress, held in connection with the Paris exposition of 1889, an able committee was appointed to carefully formulate the questions needing decision, and make suggestions as to their treatment. As the complement of their work a congress of representative chemists was held during the past summer at Geneva, that favorite meeting-place of international conferences, and the great majority of the questions were settled in a series of sixty-two rules adopted with practical unanimity. Time limitations prevented the completion of the

work, which is postponed to an adjourned session. It is impossible here to go into detail upon the important results of this congress. Suffice it to say that it has, with reasonable simplicity and deference to existent usage, provided a nomenclature which will meet the needs of chemists for probably 20 or 30 years. The chemist's language is not unlike that of the Turk, in which growth and change occur so rapidly that each new generation requires a totally revised and modernized edition of standard works in order to render them fairly intelligible to the reading public. 2. A settlement of the claims of priority in the case of the names of two elements, Columbium (or Niobium) and Glucinum (or Beryllium), seemed eminently desirable.

3. Equally important seemed to be the adhesion to several decisions on minor questions in terminology, such as that of the alcohols, the use of -ic, etc., already adopted by the London Chemical Society.

4. A subject of prime importance was the adoption of some fixed spelling and pronunciation for certain terminations, notably -in and -ine, -id and -ide, which would effectually banish the present lack of uniformity and adherence to the ordinary laws governing word-building and pronunciation in our language.

5. It seemed also proper to ascertain how far the chemist can go in adopting the simpler forms of spelling advocated by the Philological Societies of Great Britain and America, availing himself of the resultant economy and keeping in touch with the evident steady progress of phonetic reform in the English language. For the purpose of obtaining a consensus of opinion and ultimate decision on the part of American chemists with reference to the four latter topics, the Chemical Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science appointed in 1887 a special committee, which later, on account of the importance of the subject, was made one of the standing committees of the Association. Since that time the members of the committee have been in active correspondence with the entire body of American chemists and leading philologists, by means of annual circulars and individual communications, while at the successive meetings of the association the subject has been a regular topic for discussion. The final report, embodying the results of these few years of work, and approved unanimously by the Chemical Section of the Association, has recently appeared in print and been widely disseminated.

The importance of obtaining uniform usage in the application of these rules has been so fully recognized that the Bureau of Education at Washington is issuing an edition in the form of a small wall-chart, to be distributed to high-schools and colleges, which can thus keep the authority constantly in view in lectureroom and laboratory.


It might be added that the chemical nomenclature of one of the largest dictionaries in our language, now in course of preparation, is based upon this simple code, which has likewise been adopted by the influential Journal of Analytical and Applied Chemistry, and also used by Dr. T. Sterry Hunt in his latest work upon Systematic Mineralogy,” and in Professor R. A. Witthaus's recent "Manual of Chemistry." Since the appearance in print of this synopsis of rules, the writer and other members of the committee have received frequent inquiries with regard to the exact reasons underlying one or another of the individual changes recommended. These inquiries have come from those who have lacked the opportunity to keep au courant with the progress of the discussion and the final decisions. It may, therefore, meet a 1 This lack of general information on the subject and familiarity with the careful, cautious and conservative spirit in which all suggestions of change have been made, is well illustrated in a recent communication to this journal (p. 247). In this the writer, having encountered sulfate demands why phenolphtalein does not also undergo change, and then seeks to "picture our laboring scientists, with the new-system dictionary before them, ever fearful of beginning one word with an F after the new, and the next with a Ph after the old system." He is evidently unconscious of the one fact that the simplified spelling of sulfur and its derivatives, while bringing us into touch with the elementary principles of phonetic reform in our own language has much broader claims on us because it so manifestly aids all users of dictionaries and indexes in English, French, German and Italian. He likewise overlooks the fact that for the same reason the Ph of phosphorus remains intact because Italian is thus far the only language in which the digraph has been superseded by the simple F, and because the change in the initial letter of a word would lead to difficulties in the matter of reference, undesirable at present.

direct need on the part of many, especially non-chemists, to have a brief summary of the reasons for the rules which have evoked the most inquiry placed in a journal reaching all classes of those interested in the progress of science.

The most important decisions may be classified under the following heads:

1. Elements.- CESIUM. This shortened form for cæsium brings us into harmony with the French césium, and the Italian cesio, and is in accord with the prevalent reform in the use of diphthongs.

ALUMINUM. This shortened although less euphonic form meets the wishes of technical chemists, and is desirable in view of the growing industrial use of the metal.

COLUMBIUM. This replaces niobium as a matter of historical justice. It seems important that the one element discovered and named by an American chemist should retain the patriotic appellation first assigned it.

GLUCINUM is preferred to beryllium on the same ground of historical priority.

SULFUR. This is modified in accordance with the general phonetic change going on in our language, and the change is extended to all the derivatives. It is a reform which brings us into accord with the French sulfure, sulfite, etc., the German sulfat, sulfid, etc., and the Italian zolfo or solfo, solforico, etc. It might naturally be asked, Why not extend this reform to phosphorus? The reasons are here by no means so strong as in the case of sulfur. While the Italians use fosforo, the French and Germans still retain the ph, as phosphore. Again, the change would affect the initial letter a serious matter in indexing.

2. ARSIN, STIBIN, PHOSPHIN, HYDROGEN-SULFID, etc. These shorter terms, which have long since received the stamp of authoritative usage, displace completely henceforth their cumbersome synonyms, arsenetted hydrogen, etc. It is hoped that the simplification may soon be carried still farther by the introduction of sulfin, selenin, and tellurin.

3. GRAMME. At first sight the retention of the long French form might seem inconsistent with the principles of phonetic reform actuating the changes already enumerated. It is, however, dictated by strong prudential reasons, as long as the metric system is used side by side with the old series of apothecaries' weights in medicine. As soon as the transition period is over and the latter system is effectually displaced, the simpler form will unquestionably be adopted. Such is the similarity both in sound and spelling between gram and grain, that it is evident how easily mistakes of the gravest nature could occur either in following written or verbal directions, especially in this era of telephones. It is a matter of record that several deaths have already been caused by the omission of the dot over the i in grain or by mere inadvertence.

4. Derivatives of VALENCE. In their formation the Latin prefixes are used invariably instead of the Greek, this being thoroughly in accord with the recognized principles of word-building in our language.

5. The termination -OL. This is used exclusively for alcohols, and all single names for alcohols receive the termination. This is in harmony with British usage and conduces to a most desirable uniformity and simplification. The chief difficulty in the application will be found in the use of glycerol for glycerin; but as this has been overcome in England, it certainly can be in this country.

6. The termination -IC. This is used for metals only, where there is a contrast with -ous, as in ferric, mercuric, cupric, etc., avoiding such forms as strontic, aluminic, zincic, ammonic, etc. The rule brings us, also, into accord with transatlantic usage and eliminates several unnecessary and far from euphonious terms.

7. The termination -IN. The changes recommended in this connection are perhaps the most far-reaching and the most subject to discussion. They involve the dropping of the final e from the names of all chemical elements and compounds formerly ending in -ine, und the uniform pronunciation of the final syllable with the short, as chlorin, amin, anilin, quinin, cocain. The only exception to this rule is in the case of the group of doubly unsat

urated hydrocarbons (butine, heptine, hexine, pentine, propine, etc.), which still retain the final e and the long sound of i. The chief objection to this rule is the fact that some years since Watts and others proposed the use of the termination -ine for basic substances and the limitation of the termination -in to certain neutral compounds, viz., the glycerids, glucosids, proteids, and bitter principles. In this latter category are found also the so-called resinoids introduced by the eclectics, and obtained by precipitating the alcoholic extract of a drug with water.

In considering the force of the objections that may be raised against the change, it must be admitted at the outset that there is an undeniable value in the consistent use of distinctive suffixes for distinct classes of compounds; provided, however, that the use of any given suffix is limited to a single class, that there is a phonetic difference as well as a visible difference between closely allied terminations, and that there is no serious violation of established usage in word-building. Illustrations of such helpful uniformity are to be found in the terminations of the various series of hydrocarbons, of the alcohols, etc. In examining how far these conditions prevail in the use of these terminations, we note that

a. The use is not limited to a single class in the case of either -in or -ine. b. There is little or no accompanying phonetic difference, the i being almost invariably short. c. The final e, as a rule, when following a single consonant, should indicate the long sound for the preceding consonant (Webster's Dictionary, "Principles of Pronunciation," p. xlv.), which is not here the case. d. The usage would demand a very extensive and accurate knowledge of the constitution of a large number of compounds. e. It has been adopted by but a portion of the chemical world; few are consistent in its use; by many it has never been recognized. f. In the case of the resinoids, the existing possibility of danger as a result of confusion between, say, aconitin and aconitine, is but slightly helped by the presence of the final e, as will be easily acknowledged by anyone familiar with many specimens of handwriting, especially of physicians' handwriting, and as far as the ear is concerned remains unaffected -a most important consideration in view of the prevalent use of the telephone for ordering prescriptions.

It would seem eminently desirable for those most closely associated with the progress of pharmacy to counsel at once the abolition of this existing nomenclature as applied to the resinoids by introducing distinctive prefixes or additive terms, so as to remove entirely all possibility of confusion. An able writer in a recent article in the American Druggist (vol. xxi, p. 15) states: "But though they (the resinoids) are gradually going out of use, some of them are still in demand, and fatal results might ensue if both terms, that of the weaker resinoid, and that of the powerful alkaloid, were confounded." It may pertinently be inquired whether a reform, the value and utility of which is conceded by all, should be delayed by the effort to bolster up the weak fortifications about the terminology of a group of substances not distinctive chemical compounds, but mechanical, commercial mixtures - when that terminology in its present state is confessedly a menace to human life.

The advantages accruing from the application of the new rule are, briefly stated, the following: a. The simplification, uniformity, and economy of time resulting from the use of a single spelling for the same sound. b. The unvarying use in the termination -in of the short, the sound now employed in the vast majority of cases, the one approximating most nearly to the European, and the one thereby most helpful to foreigners using our language, and vice versa. c. The harmonizing of the practice governing the use of this termination with the principles underlying the general rules for the pronunciation of other chemical terminations. d. The falling into line in this regard with the general movement towards phonetic reform in our language. e. The accord with the general rule in our language governing the use of the final e and its effect on preceding vowels.

The termination -ID. This replaces in all cases -ide (as oxid, chlorid, sulfid), and the % is invariably short. The reasons for this

rule are much the same as those enumerated in the above para. graphs. Of the three pronunciations of this termination -ide, ide, and ide, in varying degrees of usage amongst us, the second appeared undoubtedly to be the most preferable; -ide is an uncommon, almost unnatural, pronunciation of the vowel in English, although it would bring our usage into unison with that of European countries, and simplify phonetic values for the ears of foreigners; -ide leads frequently to confusion with -ite, and is the value of i farthest removed from European usage; -id approximates closely to the Continental î, into which it is easily lengthened, is readily recognized by the foreign ear, is not confused with the termination -ite, is in line with present phonetic progress, and has the backing of authority and usage. The short sound of i naturally dictates the dropping of the final e. 'According to Smart and Cull, chemical terms ending in -ideas bromide, chloride, etc. should be pronounced with the long; but all other orthoëpists are unanimous in making the vowel short; and the propriety of the latter mode of pronunciation is established by the fact that this whole class of words is not unfrequently spelt without the final e, thus bromid, chlorid" (Webster's Dictionary, "Principles of Pronunciation," p. xliv.).



In conclusion, it may be said that the chemical section of the American Association recognizes the fact that there is still room for advancement in the path of phonetic reform, and that questions may still arise with regard to divergent usage or defects in existing rules. The task of collecting and collating such questions and of presenting them at a later date to the Association for action has been assigned to Professor Jas. Lewis Howe of Louisville, who will gladly receive all information, suggestions, or propositions pertinent to the subject from those interested in the perfecting of our chemical nomenclature.


BY FRANCIS GALTON, F.R.S., LONDON, ENGLAND. NUMEROUS results may be shown to flow from the excellently arranged data in the valuable memoir of Professor H. P. Bowditch on the Growth of Children (Twenty-Second Annual Report of the State Board of Massachusetts, Boston, 1891). Permit me to draw attention to two of them.

It is necessary to premise that the method was adopted by him of describing classes by means of eleven percentiles, but, for the present purpose, three are enough, namely, the 10th, 50th, and 90th. In other words, it is sufficient now to deal with the statures of the persons who occupy those posts in any class along whose length 100 posts have been marked at equal intervals. It follows that 10 per cent of the whole class are shorter than the 10th percentile and 90 per cent are taller. These conditions are reversed in respect to the 90th percentile; as for the 50th, it is the median value, which one half of the class falls short of and the other half exceeds. The median in most series differs little from the arithmetical mean, and may be used instead of it, as a serviceable standard of comparison.

The variability of a series may be measured by the difference between any two named percentiles. The wider these are apart the more is the scale magnified; on the other hand, the less trustworthy does the measure become. In the present series we can with propriety use the difference between the 10th and the 90th percentiles, but we cannot in all cases, owing to the paucity of data. use that between the 5th and the 95th; the former will therefore be here adopted as the measure of variability.

In order to compare on equal terms the variability in stature of growing boys at different ages we must so reduce their measures that the median shall in all cases be the same. It is customary for this purpose to take the median as 100, but there is more significance in the results when it is taken at a value that represents the average stature, or thereabouts, of male adults. Here it will be taken at 67 inches. In the following table the 10th and 90th percentiles for the several ages are those given by Bowditch, after multiplying them by 67, and then dividing the result by the median stature at that age.

[blocks in formation]

On examining the columns of differences, we find a remarkable increase in the differences between the 10th and 90th percentiles during the interval between the ages of 11 and 15 years; that is, of boys who at their last birthday were 11 or 15 years old. The period in question is that during some portion of which the growth is apt to be temporarily accelerated, but the precise epoch of acceleration differs; some boys being more precocious than others. Consequently the variability among boys of the same age, between the ages of 11 and 16 years, is greater than at other times. The point to which I wish now to direct attention, is the much greater variability during this period of the children of Americans than of those of Irish, for which it seems difficult to account. It can hardly be owing to variations of nurture, because its influences would probably be greatest on those classes who were least assured in their habits of life; now it is difficult to suppose that the Irish in Boston are, as a class, better established and more well-off than the Americans. As regards the effects of race, it is true that the Americans are more mixed in origin than the Irish, but we should have expected purity of race to manifest itself by a reduced variability at all ages, and not only at the particular period we are considering. However, it seems to be otherwise, and that the great variability of American children at the time in question may really be due to their mixed ancestry. In confirmation of this variability being a racial effect, we note how much earlier the epoch of its increase sets in among the children of Americans than among those of Irish, the difference amounting to at least one year. Anyhow, these statistics suggest the possible existence of an hitherto unobserved physiological difference between the children of the Americans and of the Irish, which might repay investigation.

A considerable agreement will be found in the figures contained in each of the four columns of percentiles in the table; their variations ranging through 1.2, 1.9, 0.7, and 1.3 inches, respectively. In other words, they range between limits that are hardly more than one inch on the average apart, while of course the range in other percentiles that are nearest the median is progressively smaller, till at the median itself the range is nil. There is, therefore, a fair approximation towards constancy in the ratio between any given percentile and the corresponding median that holds good for all these ages. It follows that if we are given all the eleven percentiles of stature that are found in Bowditch's memoir, together with the median heights for the several successive ages, we should have sufficient data to reproduce, in a roughly approximate way, the entire table of distribution of growth. The variability and the median are not such independent

« ZurückWeiter »