1898] NOTES AND COMMENTS 365 
observation may necessitate a modified definition. A term that 
was in use when knowledge was vague and general must be re- 
stricted or abandoned as knowledge becomes more detailed and 
accurate. One man will restrict the meaning of the old word, 
another will propose a new word; and the number of new terms 
proposed will vary in proportion to the number of investigators. 
Each approaches the problem from a different standpoint ; and who 
shall decide which conception is the correct one, which term is the 
best ? 
Scientific terminology is, and always must be, in a state of flux. 
Scientific language is, in this respect, just like any other language. 
And its evolution is subject to the same laws as govern, not merely 
all language, but most other mutable things. Whatever those laws 
may be, we cannot admit with Lady Welby “that in all other 
directions the first condition of human advance has been the 
implicit conviction that such advance was possible—and was 
imperative.” Take Lady Welby’s own instance, the alphabet. 
Which alphabet? In Europe alone there are at least seven 
alphabets in use, and each of those has many ways of writing its 
constituent letters. In our own islands the same letters express 
different sounds according as one is writing Welsh, Gaelic, or 
English. Even here uniformity is a delusion: in language it is 
a vain hope. Whether we wish it or no, change will take place, 
new terms will be proposed, and the fittest will survive. 
We would not appear to undervalue the labours of Lady Welby. 
Those who care to write to her at Denton Manor, Grantham, for a 
copy of her pamphlet will find it instructive reading. If she will 
continue her task, and will bring together the passages in which 
modern scientific terms were originally proposed or subsequently 
modified, she will render greater service to the cause she has at 
heart than by the republication of mere querulous criticism. And 
if towards the second edition that Lady Welby promises we might 
add a final suggestion, we would write across the blank pages, so 
thoughtfully provided, the one word, “ Index.” 
THE AUTHORSHIP OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
Ty our review of Professor W. W. Watts’ “Geology for Beginners ” 
(p. 422) attention is drawn to the figures of fossils said (with some in- 
accuracy) to have been “ prepared for ” Zittel’s “ Grundziige,” and to 
the fact that no reference is made to the original source of those 
figures, many of which are certainly not to be ascribed to Professor 
Von Zittel himself, though the student might be led to suppose 
that they were. Such are Walcott’s restoration of a section across 
Calymene senaria, here wrongly assigned to Triarthrus becki ; Holm’s 
restoration of Olenellus kjerulfi ; Owen’s picture of the pearly nautilus 
