214 
speculations; but it appears to me that he is only an 
uncommonly splendid specimen of a tendency, that 
threatens to render Zoology a science incumbered with 
an immense, partly humbug-like literature. It swarms 
with small (now and then even large) papers and prelimi- 
nary reports, the authors of which are soon betraying 
their ignorance of the forms of animals and of the 
literature and contributing but very few solid observa- 
tions of true value, but often setting forth one or several 
dead-born interpretations or theories — and attention 
has to be payed to this literature quite as well as to 
comparatively much fewer solid works executed with 
care and ability! i 
The excellent author of the monograph on the 
Caprellide, Prof. Dr. Paul Mayer at Naples, has lately 
written to me: »Wie soll man Alles das lesen und 
verdauen. Es giebt viel zu viele Zoologen!« and this 
may seem to be quite right, but if all zoological authors 
would work with conscientious solicitude and feel real 
interest in the science, the extent of literature would 
decrease much more than by half, and still the progress 
of Zoology become much more rapid. It would be easy 
to point out numerous examples from the literature of 
different countries. 
It would on the whole be fortunate, if a great 
number of the younger authors, in particular, were not 
so anxious to publish a preliminary report ora treatise 
of 1—5 pages, whenever believing that they have found 
a hitherto overlooked »petitesse«, they ought much rather 
try to make themselves more familiar with the forms 
and the systematic of the class or order inside the terri- 
tory of which their publication is found, before publishing 
their embryological, anatomical, systematic or faunistical 
communications. — Theories are necessarv in all science, 
but it ought not to be allowed, what is seen but too 
