86 NOTES AND COMMENTS [aveust 
should write accordingly. There is a certain tendency to brevity, born 
either of natural slothfulness or of a more laudable thrift, but in all 
cases to be kept under restraint. This tendency is very noticeable 
when an author begins to quote from others. Nowadays mere shame 
prevents one from omitting the bibliographic reference altogether ; but, 
oh! how easy it is to keep it short and to render it just so unintelli- 
gible that the reader will never bother to verify it! With what 
apparent sincerity, what underlying artfulness, we allude to “a 
ridiculous statement by M. Chose (C.R. CIX. ’87, p. 20)” or to “the 
great discovery by A. M‘Grabham (P.R.S.E., V. p. 251)”! These cabal- 
istic letters are in themselves enough to give an air of supreme authority 
to our estimate. A few such references constitute an impregnable line 
of fortifications. 
A further instance of the obscurity begotten of brevity is furnished 
by that peculiar convention which forbids the zoologist and botanist 
to write a fellow-worker’s name in full when quoting him as authority 
for a generic or specific name. To write “De Candolle” instead of 
“DC,” “ Linneus” instead of “L.” or “ Danielssen and Koren” instead 
of “D. & K.” would stigmatise one’s work as that of a mere beginner, 
unworthy of serious consideration. Naturally the constant repetition 
of the same name or names many times on every page of a systematic 
work would be intolerable, and if it really be absolutely necessary to 
quote the authority for every specific name each time it is used, then 
some fairly intelligible abbreviation is forced upon one. We, however, 
have often expressed our opinion that such repetition is an idle 
absurdity. But, just in those cases where the citation of an author's 
name would be useful, there the customary abbreviation is apt to 
deprive it of any value. The visitor to a museum sees a label “ Wood 
of Abies nobilis Ldl.”; the reader of a natural history book finds under 
a figure “Shell of Voluta nivosa Lam.” What, beyond mere bewilder- 
ment, can these symbols convey to his mind? And in these places 
brevity is not needed, for there is nearly always plenty of space to spare 
in a label or a legend. Here are some contractions taken at random 
from a text-book of zoology; we should like to know how many pro- 
fessed zoologists, to say nothing of university students, can say straight 
off what they mean:—M. & W., W. & M., Fbs., Tric., Stp., Mas. & 
Alc, Wr., M. & T.,Gm,M. V. K. To attempt to regularise these 
contractions, as the Germans have done, by the publication of a list of 
authors’ names, is only to emphasize the evil. A new edition of such 
a list would be needed each year, and even if it were rigidly adhered 
to by systematists, one could not expect every field-botanist or every 
lover of birds to keep a copy perpetually at his elbow. No! let us 
give up this attempt to put natural science on a par with the missing 
word competition. Do what we may, the Annals and Magazine of 
Natural History will never attain the popularity of Answers or 
Pearson's Weekly. 
