OF WASHINGTON. 121 



absurd, since this sum of money exceeded the entire revenue of 

 Macedonia. In the following period Dr. Gill would give more 

 attention to the writings of Gesner than to those of any of his 

 contemporaries. Gesner was the first to give generic names, 

 and his descriptions were more detailed and of a better char 

 acter than those of other writers of the period. In the Ray 

 period he would give prominence to Lister as a writer rather than 

 as but an editor of Ray's works. In periods 4 and 5 he would 

 make a marked distinction between the servile followers of Linne 

 and those who thought for themselves, as Fabricius, for example, 

 who started the movement which perhaps culminated in Latreille, 

 the author who first conceived the idea of a family in zoology. 



As to the estimate of the number of species of animals, he 

 expressed great scepticism concerning the correctness of Riley's 

 estimate of ten millions. We know most of the mammals and 

 birds of civilized regions, and although the fishes and mollusks 

 of the deep seas are perhaps not more than half known, it is out 

 of the question to consider, for a moment, that we know only 

 2,]/2 per cent, of the species which exist on the globe. He 

 further mentioned an estimate of the number of species which 

 had been overlooked by Mr. Marlatt, viz., that of Agassiz, in 

 his " Elements of Zoology." He further called attention to the 

 important anatomical work of Strauss-Durckheim. 



Mr. Ashmead spoke briefly, emphasizing the influence of 

 Ray's system on modern systematic entomology. He thought 

 that Ray is not sufficiently appreciated to-day and some of his 

 work still holds. 



Mr. Howard discussed briefly some of the authors mentioned 

 by Mr. Marlatt, giving a few additional facts of general interest, 

 referring, among others, to the fact that two great-great-grand 

 sons of Jacob Schaeffer are living in Washington to-day. He 

 criticised mildly the method of computation of the amount of 

 entomological literature in existence, particularly the method of 

 computing from the titles in the Zoological Record, and stated 

 that in his opinion the estimate of 12,000 volumes of 500 pages 

 each is too high. This statement was at once attacked by Dr. 

 Gill and by Mr. Marlatt, who gave reasons for considering the 

 estimate as not at all too high, and, in fact, possibly too low. 



Mr. Kenyon expressed himself as glad to have his table of 



