THE OSPEEY. 



77 



THE OSPREY. 



An Illustrated Magazine of Popular Ornithology. 

 Published Monthly. 

 By 

 THE OSPREY COMPANY 



Edited by Theodore Gill and Paul Bartsch, in collabo- 

 ration with Robert Kidgway. LeonhardSlejaeger, Frederic 

 A. Lucas, Charles W Richmond. William Palmer and 

 Harry C. Oberholser or Washington, and Winner Stone of 

 Philadelphia. 



Contributions of a relevant nature are respectfully soli- 

 cited, and should be addressed to The Osprky Company- 

 341-393 454 Street N. W.. Washington, D. C. 



Subscription : In the United States. Canada anil Mexico 

 One Dollar a year, in advance. Single Copies. Ten Cents, 



Foreign Subscription: One Dollarand Twenty-five Cents, 

 Postage paid to all countries in th*- Pusui ] Union, 

 Advertising rates sent on request. 



Entered as second-class matter, by The i'sf-kkv Com- 

 pany at the Washington. D. C.. Post Office. 



Vol. V. 



Comments. 



NAMES OF MAGAZINES. 



Iii the last number of the OSPREY, we made 

 comments on the "titles of magazines and col- 

 lections" apropos of Professor Greene's article 

 on "Some Literary Aspects of American Bota- 

 ny." We reproduced some of the titles animad- 

 verted on by Professor Greene, such as "Contri- 

 butions to the histogenesis of the Caryophyl- 

 lales." 



Respecting these Professor Greene has well 

 remarked: "By what is assumed in such titles 

 every one of them is supremely ridiculous. 

 Since contributions means adding to, and histo- 

 genesis is the name of a certain vital process 

 which, like all other vital processes, man is and 

 will forever be powerless to set in motion, it is no 

 more possible for a man to make contributions 

 to histogenesis than for him to contribute a 

 planet to the solar system. And so this author 

 of contributions to the histogenesis of the Car- 

 yophyllales is assuming, though unwittingly, a 

 power that has hitherto been conceded to the 

 Author and Giver of Life." 



Again, "to assume the ability of contributing 

 to the myxogasters, whether of Maine or any 

 other portion of our planet, is to assume super- 

 natural powers. Only the Creator can contri- 

 bute to the world's aggregate of either Myxo- 

 gasters or Gasteromvcetes or Euphorbiacese". 



These are indeed funny titles! 



But we cannot agree with Professor Greene 

 on one point, that is, as to the word Contribu- 

 tions. Our learned critic thinks that the use of 

 that term involves somewhat of arrogance. He 

 remarks: "The most pretentious series of scien- 

 tific papers that was somewhat early undertaken 

 in this country is that entitled 'Smithsonian 

 Contributions to Knowledge.' The name 'Con- 

 tributions' is one which is rather too high- 

 sounding to be chosen by any scientist of over- 

 much reserve and diffidence. But the term was 

 early intoduced into our botanical literature as 

 a heading by the eminent author of 'Contribu- 

 tions to Botany.' " 



We cannot concur with him in this. The 

 willow who "contributes" her mite to the "con- 

 tribution box" of her church certainly cannot 

 be considered to commit an arrogant act. So 

 the humble botanist (or ornithologist) who ven- 

 tures to make known some observation which, 

 he thinks, lias not been made before, as a "con- 

 tribution" to his science, should be rather com- 

 mended for the modesty of his claim than for 

 arrogance in assuming a title. But let this 

 pass. In almost all other respects we are at 

 one with Professor Greene. 



( )ne of the main objections urged by Professor 

 Greene against such titles as have been pub- 

 lished and their like is their inordinate length 

 and the difficulty of condensing or abbreviating 

 them in a manner which shall be readily intel- 

 ligible. 



He thinks that a short title is much to be pre- 

 ferred from such a point of view. The botanists 

 have now or have had many periodicals thus 

 designated, many named after botanists who 

 have become distinguished in their line or at 

 least endeared themselves to those who have 

 given such names. Among them are the journals 

 named LinnaeaandLindenia, Grevillia, Pittonia. 



From the names of these and other journals, 

 it would appear that euphony rather than the 

 celebrity of a name has been considered in the 

 selection of a title. With the exception of Lin- 

 naeus, none of the botanists thus commem- 

 orated acquired a fame equal to a number that 

 have not been so distinguished. 



The principle of the system of nomenclature 

 involved in this practice is not bad. If the 



