338 NATURAL SCIENCE. Nov., 



fauna of his country in his tribal tongue. So sensitive are some of 

 the most eminent Scandinavian naturalists to the inconvenience of 

 employing a language unfamiliar to the majority of scientific readers, 

 that they write their books in English in preference to using their 

 own Dano-Norwegian or Swedish. We may take it as rather a two- 

 edged compliment to ourselves, implying, as it does, that they are 

 more capable of learning to write our language than we are of 

 learning to read theirs. Notwithstanding this, many readers are 

 duly grateful, and would be only too glad to pocket a similar affront if 

 it were kindly offered them by Russian naturalists. 



There is, however, a confusion much more embarrassing to the 

 student than the confusion of tongues. He has to face the perplexing 

 fact that not only may the publication of new genera and species 

 lawfully be made in any one of the numerous countries of the world, 

 but that in any one of those countries there is no limit to the media of 

 publication which may lawfully be employed. A very costly book of 

 travels, with or without other faunistic details, may devote a few 

 lines to a new spider, though containing nothing else whatever 

 that concerns an arachnologist. Some small local society, in the 

 course of its peregrinations, discovers a new earthworm. The 

 description is printed in the local Transactions rather for the delight 

 and glory of the members than with any expectation or wish that it 

 should become known to the outer world. A new snail is described 

 in a scientific magazine, and at first sight such a report appears to be 

 exactly in its proper place, until inquiry shows that another new 

 snail has recently been described in a rival magazine of equal 

 scientific pretensions. The Proceedings of a Marine Biological 

 Station record a new fish, and again one is inclined to say that such 

 Proceedings are precisely the proper organ for making known new 

 fishes, and, were there only one such station instead of an indefinite 

 number, that might be true. Again, there are, in our own country, 

 for example, the great London societies devoted to the promotion of 

 Natural History. They are rich and generous. From a new flea 

 to a new rhinoceros, they give the discoverer all the help in their 

 power to introduce his clients to the knowledge of their fellow- 

 creatures. 



In short, no one who is capable of endowing the world with a new 

 species need be at a loss for an opportunity of doing so. When, 

 however, the question arises whether the species be really new to 

 science, the varied facilities for publication wear a less amiable 

 aspect. The conscientious zoologist finds himself in the agreeable 

 predicament of having to prove a negative. It is his duty to 

 ascertain that his proposed species has not been previously described. 

 To abbreviate the investigation, he is often tempted to rely on second- 

 hand authorities, the well-known parents of truth and *accuracy. 

 But the position should be considered of those who, with rigid 

 honesty, endeavour to consult original memoirs. Suppose, for 



