68 



NATURE 



[November 19, 1891 



of iodine. Metallic magnesium when slightly warmed reacts 

 with it with incandescence. When thrown into vapour-of mercury, 

 boron phospho-di-iodide instantly takes fire. 



The second phospho-iodide of boron obtained by M. Moissan 

 is represented by the formula BPI. It is formed when sodium 

 or magnesium in a fine state of division is allowed to act upon 

 a solution of the diiodide just described in carbon bisulphide ; 

 or when boron phospho-di-iodide is heated to i6o° in a current 

 of hydrogen. It is obtained in the form of a bright-red powder, 

 somewhat hygroscopic. It volatilizes in vacuo without fusion at 

 a temperature about 210°, and the vapour condenses in the cooler 

 portion of the tube in beautiful orange- coloured crystals. When 

 heated to low redness it decomposes into free iodine and phosphide 

 of boron, BP. Nitric acid reacts energetically with it, but 

 without incandescence, and a certain amount of iodine is 

 liberated. Sulphuric acid decomposes it upon warming, with 

 formation of sulphurous and boric acids and free iodine. By the 

 continued action of dry hydrogen upon the heated compound the 

 iodine and a portion of the phosphorus are removed, and a new 

 phosphide of boron, of the composition B5P3, is obtained. 



The additions to the Zoological Society's Gardens during the 

 past week include a Macaque Monkey {Macacus cynomolgus <J ) 

 from India, presented by Mr. James Hammond; two Pink - 

 footed Geese {Anser brachyrhynchus), British, presented by Mr. 

 Cecil Smith, F.Z. S. ; two Tuberculated Tortoises {Homopus 

 femoralis) from South Africa, presented by the Rev. G. H. R. 

 Fisk, C.M.Z.S. ; two White-tailed Sea-Eagles {Haliaetus 

 albicilla), European, purchased. 



OUR ASTRONOMICAL COLUMN. 

 Theory of Astronomical Aberration.— An interesting 

 point connected with astronomical aberration was raised by M. 

 Mascart in a paper presented to the Paris Academy of Sciences 

 on November 2. It would at first appear that if observations 

 demonstrated that the constant of aberrati n had precisely the 

 same value for all stars, the velocity of light in space must be 

 uniform. This interpretation, however, seems open to ob- 

 jections. Eclipses of Jupiter's satellites furnish a method for 

 determining the velocity of light in the space contained within 

 the earth's orbit, and, as is well known, the results obtained in 

 this manner agree very well with those deduced from experi- 

 ments made on the surface of the earth. But astronomical 

 aberration depends only upon the relation of the velocity of the 

 observer to that of the light in the region occupied by the 

 instrument, and is unaffected by any variations in the velocity 

 of propagation of the light-waves between the object observed 

 and the earth. A real difference in the constant of aberration 

 given by different stars would therefore indicate that the velo- 

 city of light was not uniform in the parts of space traversed 

 by the earth. From this reasoning, M. Mascart is led to con- 

 clude that the values derived from the experiments, direct and 

 astronomical, made to determine the velocity of light, should 

 be limited to the space contained within the terrestrial orbit. 

 The induction is certainly a legitimate one, and it must be 

 admitted that to consider the velocity of light in interstellar 

 space as uniform is to rely entirely on hypothesis. 



SUGGESTIONS FOR SECURING GREATER 

 UNIFORMITY OF NOMENCLATURE IN 

 BIOLOGY?- 



^OMPLAINTS are constantly being made, not only by lay- 

 ^-^ men but by actual workers in science, of the increasing 

 complexity of modern terminology. The fact is indisputable, 

 but is it altogether to be regretted ? Is it not rather the outward 

 expression of fuller knowledge and clearer conceptions ? If so, 



' A Paper read before Section D (Biology) of the Australasian Association 

 for the Advancement of Science, Christchurch, N.Z., by T. Jeffery Parker, 

 B.Sc, F.R.S., Professor of Biology in the LJniverSity of Otago, January 



NO. TT5I. VOL. 45] 



the complaints of those indolent persons who wish to gain a 

 "general knowledge" of the subject with the least possible 

 trouble to themselves are worthy of no more consideration 

 than those of the landsman out yachting, of whom Mr. Hamer- 

 ton writes : — 



"You cannot speak of anything on board without employing 

 technical terms which, however necessary, however unavoidable, 

 will seem to him a foolish and useless affectation by which an 

 amateur tries to give himself nautical airs. If you say ' the 

 main-sheet,' he thinks you might have said more rationally and 

 concisely, ' the cord by which you pull towards you that long 

 pole which is under the biggest of the sails,' and if you say 'the 

 starboard quarter,' he thinks you ought to have said, in simple 

 English, ' that part of the vessel's side that is towards the back 

 end of it and to your right hand when you are standing with 

 your face looking forwards.' " 



As a modern yacht or ironclad requires a more elaborate 

 terminology than a fishing-boat or a trireme, so it is necessary 

 that the exact morphology of to-day — to speak only of one 

 branch of biology — should be weighted with a more extensive 

 nomenclature than was required for the simpler comparative ana- 

 tomy of former days. That many are repelled by the bristling 

 outwork of more or less barbarous Greek and Latin compounds is 

 undoubted, and is much to be regretted ; but I quite fail to see 

 that it can be avoided as long as we have to deal with a compa- 

 ratively inflexible language like Ent;lish. I would recommend 

 anyone who is deeply impressed with the evils of the present 

 system to try and translate a technical description of one of the 

 ordinary students' types — say an earthworm or a crayfish — into 

 "plain English " without loss of conciseness or lucidity. 



I think it may be taken as axiomatic that whenever the bounds 

 of knowledge are extended, either by the investigation of new 

 problems or by the re-examination of old ones with the aid of 

 improved methods and extended views, an elaboration of nomen- 

 clature is inevitable. Indeed, the introduction of an extended 

 terminology, either because of the discovery of new facts or of 

 the more accurate grouping of old ones, is a distinct gain ; it 

 emphasizes an actual advance in knowledge. 



There are, however, certain undoubted evils connected with 

 the introduction of new terms which must have troubled all of us 

 at some time or other. 



Two workers at a given subject living in different parts of the 

 world invent each a terminology of his own. Each system is 

 adopted by the inventor's own friends or countrymen, and no 

 attempt is made by the general body of biologists to give either 

 scheme official sanction — on grounds of priority or otherwise. 

 In this respect systematists have a great advantage ; if a given 

 specific or generic name can be shown to have priority, it takes 

 precedence of every other, however much more suitable the latter 

 may be. Morphological names, on the other hand, always run the 

 risk of being either ignored altogether, or ousted by others which, 

 although no more appropriate, and perhaps considerably later in 

 date, happen to be invented or adopted by some widely-read 

 author. 



New terms are sometimes proposed without a due sense of 

 responsibility — on inadequate grounds or even from mere love ot 

 novelty ; and, on the other hand, the conservative tendency leads 

 to the continued employment of unsuitable terms when appro- 

 priate ones have been proposed in their place. New names are 

 often casually introduced in the body of a large and highly 

 technical paper, where they are certain to be seen by few ; and, 

 lastly, it frequently happens that such terms are inadequately 

 defined. 



Unfortunately this state of things can hardly be remedied by 

 anything corresponding to the British Association's Rules, which 

 have proved so useful in systematic zoology and botany. In 

 these departments the appropriateness of a name is a matter of 

 little importance, but in morphological nomenclature suitability 

 is of far more importance than priority, and the most respect- 

 able and time-honoured terminology should never be allowed to 

 stand in the way of one by which homologies, mutual relations, 

 &c., are adequately expressed. 



As morphology is essentially a progressive science, any attempt 

 to draw up hard and fast rules on nomenclature is for the most 

 part to be deprecated ; the fittest must be allowed to survive. I 

 think, however, that a few rules and definitions might be framed 

 and afforded the official sanction, say, of the British, American, 

 and Australasian Associations. 



For instance, it is about time that we made up our minds as 

 to what exactly we mean by biology, whether the whole scieace 



