CORRESPONDENCE. 



A Complaint from the Wilderness. 



Some time ago, having occasion to write to the Secretary of the Zoological 

 Society about another matter, I enclosed the description of a new species of Coccidse, 

 of special interest, which I had just found at that time. In my letter I remarked 

 that it could be printed in the P.Z.S., or, if the Society did not care to print it, 

 I should be glad if he would kindly send it on to the Annals. 



After a good while, I saw by the papers that the description had been read at 

 the Society, and presumed that it would be published in due course. But to-day 

 I get it back, with no further explanation than the statement that the publication 

 committee do not consider it suitable. The Society had kept the MS. over two and 

 a half months. 



Now, I have no complaint to make, of course, about the non-publication of the 

 MS. ; indeed, I had some little doubt in my own mind as to the suitability of the 

 P.Z.S. for the introduction of a new insect, however excellent it might be for a new 

 monkey. The wording of my letter to the Secretary was the result of this doubt. 



The point I want to raise is this. Is it right for a Society to temporarily 

 accept a MS., retain it some months, have it presented at a meeting, and then decline 

 to publish it ? Is not such a proceeding discourteous to the author, to say the least ? 

 Is it not calculated to deter those not among the select few from contributing MSS. 

 to the Society ? I do not say that it is intended to have this result ; but whatever 

 may be intended, surely such a method of procedure is both objectionable and 

 unnecessary. I am raising the point now in reference to a particular instance, but 

 the same thing has happened to my knowledge on other occasions, and probably 

 happens often. At one of the very first meetings of the Zoological Society which I 

 attended, a paper on fishes was read, which had been sent in by an old and dis- 

 tinguished South American naturalist ; it was received with remarks about its being 

 not up-to-date, and unsuitable for publication. The principal speaker was a very 

 learned authority on fishes, and I can well believe that all he said was true ; but, 

 all the same, I thought the Society had not acted very courteously to the absent 

 author. 



T. D. A. COCKERELL. 



New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station (U.S.A.). 

 February 25, 1895. 

 [We print Mr. Cockerell's letter because we wish to keep our columns open, so 

 far as is possible, to any scientific man who has a complaint of general interest to 

 make. We have dealt elsewhere with the question of the publication of papers. In 

 the present instance, however, we have no doubt that the Publication Committee, 

 which is elected by the Fellows, was acting only in the interest of the Society.— 

 Editor, Natural Science.] 



The Methods of Organic Evolution. 



Mr. Galton has recently repeated, in Mind, his suggestion that specks have 

 originated by discontinuous variation, i.e., by a series of sudden leaps, or sports, from 

 one position of organic stability to another ; and that this method of evolution is 

 independent of the processes of selection. This theory, which is based upon Mr. 

 Galton's statistical enquiries into heredity and regression, has been criticised by Mr. 

 Wallace in the Fortnightly Review for February and March. 



