324 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 



NEEDLESS OBSCURITY IN SCIEN- 

 TIFIC PUBLICATIONS. 



Aftek having called attention in a 

 recent issue of the Monthly to certain 

 circumstances leading to the retardation 

 of science, we may now venture to dis- 

 cuss a few of the particular ways in 

 which a scientific writer can perplex 

 his brother workers. Nobody supposes 

 that the ordinary author wishes his con- 

 tribution to be regarded as a sort of 

 'puzzle-page/ but that is the effect 

 often unintentionally produced. The 

 causes of this are of diverse nature. 

 In these days of ultra-specialization 

 and of hurry, a specialist often inclines 

 to address himself solely to his fellow- 

 specialists, or to an even smaller cir- 

 cle—his fellow-specialists of the moment, 

 forgetting those that may come at a 

 later day. There may be in the whole 

 world but two men who will take the 

 trouble to read his paper, or who would 

 really understand its bearings. Whether 

 from modesty or from pride, from desire 

 of brevity or from laziness, our special- 

 ist addresses his remarks solely to those 

 two. The student who is not yet quite 

 at the same level, the professor who 

 tries to keep abreast of his subject in 

 general, the worker who comes a few 

 years later and sees things from an 

 altered point of view; all these find 

 themselves 'out of it,' and long investi- 

 gations are often necessary before they 

 can be sure of the author's meaning. 



The same obscurity is achieved by 

 those whose humility leads them to 

 think other folk more learned than 

 themselves, whereas, in writing scien- 

 tific papers, as in lecturing, political 

 speaking or leader-writing, one should 

 remember the old request of the lis- 

 tener, 'Of course, I know; but speak to 

 me as if I didn't know,' and the prac- 

 tical warning of the playwright, 'Never 

 fog your audience.' Or it may be not 



so much humanity as the short-sighted 

 egoism of the enthusiast, who assumes 

 that his little corner must needs be 

 known to all the world. But it i» 

 perhaps not so important for our present 

 purpose to discuss the state of mind 

 conducing to obscurity, as it is to 

 point out instances. 



Here is a common one. In strati- 

 graphical geology everyone is supposed 

 to know the names of the great sys- 

 tems; and if the names of their main 

 subdivisions are less familiar, they can 

 at all events be readily hunted up in 

 a text-book. But there are an extraor- 

 dinary number of names nowadays 

 invented for quite small divisions, or 

 for purely local rocks, and many of 

 these names convey of themselves very 

 little meaning. Is there a geologist 

 living who can say offhand what 

 is meant by all or even half of the 

 following names, which are taken at 

 random from some recent publications: 

 Plaisancien, Schlier, Catadupa beds, 

 Calder Limestone, Hornstein, Oberen 

 Mergel-schichten, Feuerstein, Scaglia 

 rosata, Knorrithone, Ferrugineus- 

 schichten, Deer Creek Limestone, Sem- 

 meringkalke, Diceratien, Moscow shale, 

 Lenneschiefer ? The language or the 

 locality may guide one to a rough 

 determination, or a few names of fos- 

 sils may be an indication to the ex- 

 pert; but when these names are intro- 

 duced without further explanation, as 

 is actually the case in many of the 

 papers from which these instances are 

 quoted, then perplexity followed by irri- 

 tation is the natural result. The names 

 just cited are of diverse nature. Calder 

 Limestone and Lenneschiefer are terms 

 of local application and perfectly jus- 

 tifiable; all that we ask is a hint, 

 however * guarded, as to the probable 

 horizon of these restricted rocks in com- 

 parison with a better known geological 



