January. 1897. CORRESPONDENCE. 69 



Orang-Outang or Orang-Outan. 



Dr. Arthur Keith remarks in his valuable paper on Anthropoid Apes, vol. ix., 

 p. 316, note, " Temminck gives Orang-Outan as the correct spelling ; Sal. Miiller, 

 who was familiar with the Malay language, rendered it Orang-Oetan, but Orang- 

 Outang is the form in most common use." If Orang-Outang really is the form still 

 in most common use, it only proves how difficult it is to remove an inaccuracy 

 which has once crept into literature. Orang utan means " man of the forest," Orang 

 utang would mean " a man who has debts." As far back as 1877 {Mitth. Zool. Mus., II., 

 p. 225, note) I showed this to be the case, and, more recently [Abh. Mus. Dresden, 

 1894-5, No. 14, p. 6, note) I recurred to the question with the following words, 

 which I beg permission to quote translated : " With what difficulty even small faults 

 get out of books, is proved by the spelling of the word Orang utan. Mostly one still 

 finds Orang utang, though Miiller and Schlegel so early as the year 1840 drew 

 attention to the falseness of this spelling {Verh. Nat.gesch. overz. bez., p. 11) ; later, in 

 1S66, Gratiolet and Alix censured it (N. Arch. Mus. Paris, II., p. 4, note i). In 

 1877 I remarked thereon {I.e.), and recently Jentink recurred to the incorrect 'g' 

 {Notes Leyden Mus., 1895, p. 17, note)." " Oe " in outan is the Dutch spelling ; " ou," 

 the English and French ; and " u," the German, according to the pronunciation of 

 the respective languages. 



R. Zoological Museum, Dresden, A. B. Meyer. 



9 Dec , 1896. 



Australian Pictographs. 



With reference to our Note on this subject (vol. ix., p. 80), in which we called 

 attention to discrepancies between the descriptions and the drawings published by 

 Mr. R. L. Jack, that gentleman informs us that his descriptions are accurate, but 

 that his faithful copies of the drawings were lithographed by a careless draughts- 

 man, whose errors Mr. Jack had no opportunity of rectifying. 



Dr. Wheelton Hind's "Monograph on Carbonicola, etc." 



It is with repugnance and regret that we publish the following letters from 

 Dr. Wheelton Hind and Mr. W. F. Holroyd. We have urged both of these 

 writers to . expunge the personalities that they have permitted themselves to 

 substitute for argument. Since, however, both of them seem unable to appreciate 

 our objection, and insist on the publication of this or nothing, we have finally 

 decided to follow our practice of allowing free voice to either side. Therefore, after 

 due warning, the letters are printed word for ivord as their authors finally sent them 

 to us. 



We could not ask our Reviewer to reply to letters of this nature in other terms 

 than those chosen by him ; but in defence of ourselves against Dr. Hind's fina 

 paragraph, we may point to his own assertion that Mr. Bolton informed him last 

 summer that he thought of writing a review of this Monograph. For the rest, we 

 leave it to any of our readers that have a liking for this kind of thing, to contrast 

 the statements now made by Messrs. Hind and Holroyd with the Monograph itself, 

 and with the remarks of our Reviewer. — Ed. Nat. Sci. 



In your number of Natural Science for Dec. 1896 there appears a review of my 

 Monograph on Carbonicola, Anthracomya and Naiadites, the nature of which from 

 more points than one makes it necessary for me to make some remarks thereon ; not 

 I hope that I for one moment object to any fair and honest criticism, which the work 

 doubtless calls for, being the production of a mortal. 



The reviewer objects to the substitution of the generic term Carbonicola M'Coy, 

 for Anthracosia King, a replacement which I deeply regretted, but according to the 

 present rules of nomenclature I had no choice in the matter. Unfortunately in 

 endeavouring to show grounds for the retention of Anthracosia the reviewer 

 suppresses one portion of the evidence, and invents another. Briefly the position is 

 as follows. 



Sowerby, in 1829, describes Min. Conch. 2 coal measure shells as Unio acutus, and 



