334 NATURAL SCIENCE. May, 



necessary to demonstrate it. I would also point to the committees 

 nominated, some quite independently, to consider the possibilities of 

 a reform. Looking back upon my recent hasty visit to England, it 

 seems to me that the conviction is almost as strong in England as in 

 other parts of the world. Indeed, were it not for the fear of violating 

 confidences, I am sure I could base my entire plea on the statements 

 made to me by English zoologists personally connected with the Record. 

 It is needless to insist upon the entire disinterestedness of such persons, 

 or upon their desire to raise the standard of the work. I sincerely 

 hope it will be regarded needless in my own case as well. Let us then 

 face the matter frankly : the Record, in spite of all the efforts that are 

 being made in its behalf, is sadly imperfect, and any serious attempt 

 to raise its standard of excellence deserves the hearty support of every 

 English zoologist. 



Before turning to consider the means of improving the Record, 

 however, I desire to point out another serious defect. Here, I am 

 sure, no one will contradict me. The maintenance of this journal 

 imposes excessive financial burdens on the Zoological Society. Some 

 one has said : " No publication can succeed that is not a com- 

 mercial success!" I should be loth to insist upon the exactness 

 of this maxim as universally applied, but I think that the experi- 

 ence of the Record is a singular confirmation of its justness in petto. 

 What has been the answer to those who complained of the exclusion 

 of extinct forms from most of the chapters of the Record ? "We cannot 

 spend more than we do. We lose ^350 annually. We cannot 

 assume a greater burden." Before this astounding statement it was 

 obviously impossible to press the matter. No larger sacrifice can be 

 asked. The sacrifice is already too large. 



The defects of the present Record are of various kinds. Some are 

 trifling matters of detail and result from a faulty system. Their elimi- 

 nation would require no essential change, and they may be neglected 

 entirely for the moment. Others, such as the want of an author's 

 index, require additional labour. It is with these more serious faults 

 that I propose to deal, selecting from among them the most difficult 

 of all, viz., incompleteness. 



If the Record is to meet the needs of the zoological world, there 

 must be the assurance that no really important paper has been 

 omitted. For a purely morphological record, this word " important" 

 implies, doubtless, a considerable restriction, but even then, exclusion 

 must be very sparingly used. It is obviously undesirable that the 

 innumerable notes, published often with no intention of contributing 

 to knowledge, should be dragged forth from their obscurity and placed 

 upon permanent record, where every serious student will encounter 

 them. Such a procedure would be only an impediment, no aid. With 

 systematic zoology, however, the case is different. Our rules of 

 nomenclature are explicit on this point. All descriptions of new 

 species, at least, are " important," and the Record fails in its object if 



