Sept. 19, 1872] 



NATURE 



413 



better than the writer. But we are never tired of con- 

 Jemplating a nature so singularly beautiful as that of 

 Karaday. Whether we think of him as pourtrayed by 

 Dr. Bence Jones, Dr. Tyndall, or Dr. Gladstone, or by 

 8'rof. Helmholtz, Dumas, or De la Rive, the picture is 

 still the same ; — 



"His life was gentle ; and the elements 

 So mix'd in him, that Nature might stand up 

 And say to all the world, ' This was a Man ! ' " 



W. F. Barrett 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 



\ Tiir Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 

 by his correspondents. No notice is taken of anonymous 

 coKfttunications. ] 



American Stone Arrowheads 



I AM glad to perceive that Dr. AMiott has called attention to 

 Ihe variations in form among North American stone arrowheads, 

 although he cannot admit the correctness of some of the remarks 

 I have incidentally made on this subject in my " Ancient Stone 

 Impl.'men;s of Great Britain." At the time when that work 

 went to press, I was not in possession of Dr. Abbott's " Stone 

 Age in New Jersey," if, indeed, it had appeared, and in describ- 

 ing the various North American forms, for want of other autho- 

 lities I principally n ferred to .Schoolcraft, Squier and Davis, 

 and Prof. Daniel Wilson, some of whom Dr. Abbott appears to 

 consider as soaiewhat antiquated. 



It is not to be supposed that my acquaintance with the collec- 

 tions in the United States should in any way approach that of 

 Dr. Abbott, as I have never visited America. My views as to 

 ihe prevalence of different types were, however, mainly founded, 

 not on printed descriptions, but on actual specimens preserved in 

 collections in this country, my own among the number ; and 

 with all deference to Dr. Abbott, who has kindly promised to 

 send me the specimens on which he bases his remarks, I think it 

 will be found that his views, even if completely applicable to 

 New Jersey, will hardly hold good throughout the northern part 

 of the United States and Canada. The principal points on 

 which he disagrees with me are — 



1. As to the arrowheads with a notch at the base on either side 

 constituting a prevailing type in North America. 



2. As to the leaf-shaped form being very rare. 



3. As to the chipping being for the most part but rough, as 

 compared with that exhibited on the arrowheads found in 

 Britain. 



1. As to the first point. Dr. Abbott does not appear to appre- 

 ciite the difference between "a" and "the;" and though it is 

 possible that other forms of arrowheads are found in America 

 in equal numbers with those such as I have mentioned, yet I 

 tliink he would agree with me, if he were comparing a series, 

 from North America with one from some other country, in re- 

 cognising those with a notch at the base on either side as offering 

 one of tlie prevailing types. 



2. As to the leaf-shaped form being very rare, I may observe 

 that among the thirty-eight figures ol arrowheads given by Dr. 

 Abbott in his " Stone Age in New Jersey " only one is leaf- 

 shaped, though he mentions the plain leaf-shaped form as the 

 prevailing vaiietyof the leal-shaped arrowhead and its modifica- 

 tions. In my own collection, comprising upwards of 160 Noith 

 American arrowheads, there are inly six that can be termed leaf- 

 shaped, and but two of these are really typical specimens of the 

 lorm. These two have come into my possession since my book 

 was written. If not "veiy rare " I think the form must be re- 

 garded as comparatively rare. 



3. Lastly, as regards workmanship, Dr. Abbott seems not to 

 have observed that my statement as to the rougliness of chipping 

 was qualified with the words " fm- the most part." Anyone 

 comparing a collection of stone arrowheads from North America 

 with one formed in Britain or Ireland would, I think, at once 

 aomit that, .as a whole, the latter were more finely and delicately 

 chipped. Or, again, comparing iir. Abbott's illustrations with 

 mine the same general conclusion will be attained. Even the 

 most elegantly lormed American specimens that I have seen 

 cannot compete in delicacy of workmanship with some of the 

 f^nglish examples, such, for instance, as those represented in 

 my figures 317, 318, 319. I can only say that if Dr. Abbott or 



any other American collector will kindly send me some specimens 

 equally well-chipped, I shall be proud to add them to my collec- 

 tion, and not too proud to acknowledge any errors into which I 

 may have been betrayed through insufficiency of knowledge. 



John Evans 

 Nash Mills, Hemel Hempsted, Sept. 14 



Botanical Terminology 



Botany is now being taught to large numbers in public and 

 middle-class schools ; its admission as a subject of general study 

 can only be justified by its high educational value, not so much 

 as an end, but as a means. Many of the boys who work at it 

 will have no time to continue the study in detail, and the little 

 they know of it will be what they learn at school. 



Upon all these grounds it is desirable that there should be no 

 unnecessary or conventional impediments placed in the way 01 

 as much education as possible being given in the short time 

 allotted to it. I am desirous of eliciting an opinion as to whether 

 the botanical terminology is or is not an impediment, diminish- 

 ing the educational value and restricting the scope of the subject. 

 For some years at Rugby 1 have felt myself hampered with a 

 weariness of names. Is a terminology as polyglot in its deriva- 

 tion as the tower of Babel, and often involving questionable 

 hypotheses of function, or incorrect ideas of morphology, the 

 best instrument for making young pupils observe accurately or 

 reason accurately on observed results ? And yet a teacher cannot 

 select the terms he will use, (i) because the books, and espe- 

 cially the English and local floras, imjily in their readers a 

 knowledge of a wide terminology ; and (2) because, as in the 

 fight against Euclid, so here the teacher is subject to the ex- 

 aminer, and at present the examination papers of the Science 

 and Art Department, Cambridge Local, &c., are incompre- 

 hensible to a boy not bristling with terms. 



Allow me specially to call attention to some of what appear 

 to me unnecessary faults in the terms used, and to suggest one or 

 two remedies. The names chosen to denote parts are mainly 

 derived from I^atin or Greek, or both, or have no received deri- 

 vation. Well, even supposing that the words do, by their 

 derivation from the dead language, suggest to those who know 

 it some clue to their meaning, yet how few boys can keep these 

 derivations in their heads, especially in schools in which Latin is 

 not much and Greek not at all taught. Why on earth, when 

 the promoters of science are driving out Greek to let in science 

 should a knowledge of Greek be a necessary "open sesame" to 

 the correct remembering and spelling of botanical terms ? 



But the above supposition is seldom correct, the words 

 when translated expressing either a fanciful resemblance, or 

 some pre-adamite stage of botanical knowledge. If the opening 

 through which the pollen-tube passes is already called "little 

 gate," perhaps we must submit to the name, but why call it 

 "micropyle. " ? 



And tiere perhaps is the place to make a protest against 

 such words as were Hooded into the science at the time when 

 the sexuality of plants was first established. 



The usefulness of insisting on the generalisation that gamoge- 

 nesis was common to plants and animals only exists in teaching 

 those who know what gamogenesis in animals means. Does that 

 usefulness exist in the case of boys and girls who learn botany. ? 

 In teaching Human Physiology, some subjects are omitted aiid 

 rightly omitted, from such text-books as Huxley's Elementary 

 Physiology; why then should a knowledge of such subjects be 

 assumed in our botanical terms ? The facts of botany can all be 

 taught, as far as my experience of boys and giris goes, without 

 the slightest difticulty; the gener.alisation will lollow of itself, as 

 soon as it is wanted ; I only object to its being gratuitously, 

 and almost pruriently, forced on the attention. Who can approve 

 of the use in our elementaiy floras of the term " hermaphrodite," 

 or the same symbols for pistillate and staminate plants being used 

 which the boys are taught in their astronomy as the recognised 

 symbols for Venus and Mars? To this class belong the tribe of 

 words ending in —androus and —gymms, which must either be 

 taught as unintelligible gibberish, or explained on gamogenetic 

 analogy. 1 do not wish to be misunderstood : if you are leaching 

 the physiological subjects in animals, let " honi soit " be your 

 motto, and call a spade a spade ; there are worse evils than we 

 dream of arising from obscurantism ; but if you are teaching 

 botany, keep to your subject, and do not go out of your way to 

 call a club a spade. 



Lastly, many words are utterly confusing: either they seem by 

 their jingling similarity to make the learner and mdeed even 



