August i8, 1892] 



NA TURE 



;67 



By the use of the range table it was found what was the ex- 

 perimental elevation and time of flight for each of the ranges 

 obtained by calculation. 



The results of calculation and experiment are given in the 

 following table. In column i the calculated ranges are spe- 

 cified. In columns 2 and 3 the calculated and experimental 

 corresponding times of flight are given, and in column 4 the 

 differences of these quantities. In columns 5 and 6 the calcu- 

 lated and the experimental elevations are given, and in column 

 7 their differences, which are due to the "jump" of the gun and 

 to the " vertical drift " of the elongated shot. The calculated 

 horizontal remaining velocity (column 8) is given in each case 

 in yards per second to facilitate the expression of the small 

 errors in time, given in column 4, in yards of range. 



By the use of the general tables the time of flight over each 

 range and the horizontal remaining velocity have been calculated 

 {see columns 10 and 9), supposing the shot in each case to start 

 with the horizontal muzzle velocity, and to move through air of 

 a density corresponding to the mean height to which the shot 

 actually rises. 



The very small differences in column 4 between the calculated 

 and experimental times of flight for the full extent of the range 

 table afford conclusive evidence of the accuracy of the coefficients 

 of resistance derived from my experiments of 1867, 1868, and 

 1878-80. F. Bashforth. 



A Plea for an International Zoological Record. 



Being now for the second year one of the Recorders for our 

 English "Zoological Record," I should like to offer a few re- 

 marks upon the disadvantages of the system of recording that 

 prevails at present in England and abroad. 



The first point to be noticed is the number of independent 

 Records that are published. Chief among these are our 

 Zoological Record and the Zoologischer J ahresbericht, published 

 by the Zoological Station at Naples. Besides these there are 

 several minor semi-private records which it does not concern 

 us to enumerate. 



The disadvantage of so many records is obvious. In the 

 first place they are expensive, as the result of competition is to 

 decrease the number of purchasers of each record, since com- 

 paratively few zoologists are able to purchase more than one 

 of them. Secondly they are all in some way incomplete. Thus 

 without going into great details it may be pointed out that the 

 ■Zoological Record %}^tCi3X\zi% upon systematic zoology, and as a 



NO. 1190, VOL. 46] 



result the portions devoted to animal morphology and embry- 

 ology are all but useless, as a rule, to those interested in these 

 subjects. Moreover, the systematic portion, being often under- 

 taken by zoologists who are not professed systematists, does 

 not appear always to give satisfaction to those it is intended to 

 benefit. On the other hand the Zoologischer J ahresbericht 

 leaves out systematic zoology entirely, which in many groups of 

 animals cannot well be separated from other branches of study, 

 and from the fact that it does not record palceontological papers, 

 there are often omitted, at least in my two groups — sponges 

 and echinoderms — many works of great morphological 

 importance. 



Some years ago a proposal was made by Dr. Dohrn and the 

 staff of the Naples Zoological Station to unite the two records 

 into one. The English part was to be entirely systematic, the 

 Naples part was to be entirely morphological and physiological, 

 and both were to be published together as parts of one record. 

 This most excellent proposal was refused by the British zoolo- 

 gists, owing, apparently, to a desire to gain exclusive honour for 

 British nationality. 



I wish now to propose that this long-delayed project should 

 be carried out, and that in future one International Zoological 

 Record should be published. Such a record should fall into 

 two natural parts : (i) a morphological and physiological part, 

 and (2) a systematic part ; each with its own chief editor. 

 Seeing now that Naples is a recognized centre for zoological 

 research, and that a modern zoologist's education is scarcely 

 complete until he has studied there, the first part of the Record 

 could best be done there much on the lines of the present 

 J ahresbericht. On the other hand London, with the greatest 

 systematic collection in the world and the addition of a perfect 

 library, would naturally be the centre for the systematic part. 

 The total result could be published in one volume, perhaps best 

 at Leipzig, and the systematic part would be in English, while 

 the morphological part could be in English, French, German, 

 or whatever might be the language of the recorder, as it is now 

 in the Naples J ahresbericht. 



I think the advantages of such a scheme are obvious. By the 

 combination the labour of recording would be enormously 

 lessened, and the combined record need not be much more 

 expensive than either one of the two now existing. At the 

 same time authors could be encouraged to send in abstracts of 

 their own works to one of the two editors. This would be an 

 advantage in every way. In the first place authors would be 

 sure of seeing a proper abstract of their papers published. I 

 am sure it must be the experience of many who have published 

 a memoir and afterwards read the abstract of it, that the abstract 

 often gives a shockingly mutilated account of the results set forth 

 in the original paper. By the omission of a qualifying phrase 

 or sentence, an author's results are often made to appear 

 in abstracts as absolute rubbish. I speak as one who has 

 suffered. 



On the other hand, the work of the recorder would be still 

 further lightened by authors sending abstracts of their own 

 works. It might be left to the editors' discretion to cut down 

 an abstract if it was too long. 



I feel confident that a scheme of combined records such as 1 

 have sketched out would cheapen the production of the Record 

 to such an extent, that, amongst other things, it would be pos- 

 sible to pay a special recorder of the literature, that is to say, a 

 person whose business it would be to go through all the perio- 

 dicals and sort out the papers amongst the different recorders, 

 as is actually done by the editor of the Naples J ahresbericht. 

 In the present system of the English Zoological Record each 

 recorder has to go through the whole of the periodicals, and if 

 the group be a small one, e.g. sponges, the labour of search- 

 ing for papers is out of proportion to the task of recording them. 

 Moreover, it necessitates a longer or shorter residence in London 

 near the British Museum Library, which may cost a recorder 

 more thati he is paid for his share of the Record. The duties of 

 a recorder of the literature would be best undertaken by some 

 one residing near the British Museum, as he could then get all 

 the periodicals. During my residence in Naples last year I was 

 unable to obtain all the periodicals in the enormous list of the 

 Zoological Record, and thus I was obliged to leave out of my 

 Sponge and Echinoderm Record for 1890 a great many papers 

 which I am recording now for 1891, 



A great need at the present moment is the intelligent organiza- 

 tion of scientific research, and I venture to suggest the above 



