68 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



Geologists and Specialists. 



It -s not surprising that some geologists should have protested against your 

 note on " Pavingstone Palaeontology, " because its language was not very happy and 

 did not seem calculated to smooth the way for bringing geologists and zoologists into 

 closer touch with one another, which it now seems was your real intention. 



It is satisfactory, however, to find that you are able to respond to the letter of 

 " Stratigraphical Geologist" by giving a preliminary Hst of speciaHsts who are 

 willing, under certain conditions, to examine and name fossils collected by field 

 geologists. I have long felt that there ought to be closer scientific relations between 

 the specialist in the museum and the geological worker in the field. The specialisa- 

 tion of our science has now reached a point when the one set of workers cannot 

 achieve satisfactory results without the assistance of the other set. I heartily 

 endorse the remarks made by Mr. Marr in that portion of his presidential address 

 which you quoted in your November number (p. 285), and I would remind you that 

 they included some good advice to the specialists, who must be careful not to take 

 too comprehensive views of species, and must remember that they too have some- 

 thing to learn out of doors. As Mr. Marr says, " the specialist who remains in his 

 museum examining the collections amassed by the labours of others, and never 

 notes the mode of occurrence of fossils in the strata will perhaps soon be extinct." 

 By all means let us join hands, and remember that we can each help the other, and 

 that we each have much yet to learn from Nature. 



Coming now to the question of publishing a list of specialists, I think you are 

 quite right in maintaining the desirability of making it more widely known that 

 there are so many specialists who are ready to help any bond fide worker by naming 

 fossils for him. I have received much kind assistance from several of the gentlemen 

 on your list, but there are others to whom I have not hitherto ventured to apply for 

 assistance because I had no assurance that they v/ould be willing to give it. 



I am sure there are men belonging to natural history societies and field clubs in 

 various parts of the country who are quite capable of working-out local geological 

 details, but who are deterred from trying because they do not know how to get their 

 fossils named; there are doubtless others who make the endeavour, and who publish 

 lists of fossils which are not as accurate as they might be. 



If, therefore, any of the palaeontologists to whom you have written have 

 withheld their names because they think it is unnecessary to give them, I can assure 

 them from personal experience that they are mistaken. 



I may likewise point out that there is also such a man as a stratigraphical 

 specialist, a student of one particular set of rocks, and that he may sometimes act as 

 a useful intermediary. For instance, I am quite willing to examine collections made 

 from any Upper Cretaceous strata, provided localities and horizons are indicated, 

 and to name the fossils to the best of my ability. Any species which I could not 

 determine with certainty might then be forwarded to specialists either by me or by 

 the collector himself. 



I trust you will shortly be able to publish a longer list of names, and I shall 

 hope to avail myself of such assistance still more fully in the future than I have 

 done in the past. A. J. Jukes-Browne. 



[We beg to thank the six friends who have expressed their willingness to have 

 their names added to our list of specialists. We intend to publish a supplement 

 to the list next month. — Ed. Nat. Sci.] 



