August 6, 1908] 



NA TURE 



^9 



the European Tertiary Aphididae, although, according to 

 Scudder, they resemble a species (Genaphis valdensis, 

 Brodie) from the Jurassic of England. This Genaphis, 

 however, has a short thick stigma, such as may be seen 

 in some modern Chaitophorus, whereas the stigma in the 

 Florissant forms is long and slender. 



There are two ways in which the peculiarities of the 

 Florissant Aphidida: might be explained. Either it might 

 be supposed that they have undergone parallel evolution 

 in a certain direction, giving rise to the present fauna, or 

 it might be held that they represent an extinct series, 

 driven out of existence by the Aphidida; of the Palasarctic 

 fauna, which reached America in the late Miocene or 

 early Pliocene. Supposing the original centre of Aphid 

 evolution to have been Palaearctic (perhaps Asiatic), it 

 may be that in late Secondary or early Tertiary times 

 Aphidida; reached America, giving rise in due course to a 

 series of genera, a good sample of which is preserved for 

 us at Florissant. This would readily explain the peculiar 

 fact of certain characters running throughout the series, 

 these being derived from the original immigrants. While 

 this evolution was proceeding, the old-world Aphides were 

 undergoing developments of their own, leading directly to 

 the present Aphid fauna of the north temperate regions. 

 The generic uniformity (with few exceptions) of this fauna 

 points strongly to its common source, and the European 

 Tertiary Aphid fauna appears to corroborate the idea that 

 this was Pala:arctic. It remains only to suppose that 

 when the Palsearctic Aphides reached America they were 

 successful in ousting the endemic genera, which would 

 have been totally lost to science had they not been pre- 

 served at Florissant. Perhaps, however, they have not 

 been so completely lost, and it may be that aphidologists, 

 with the pakpontological facts in mind, will even yet dis- 

 cover some of the Florissant genera living in the moun- 

 tains of Central or South America. 



In this connection it may be well to direct attention to 

 the very important paper by Dr. W. D. Matthew, lately 

 published in the Bulletin of the American Museum of 

 Natural History, June 30. In this paper Dr. Matthew 

 discusses the evolution of the deer (Cervidae), and concludes 

 that these animals have successively dispersed from a local 

 centre, driven southward before the competition of higher 

 types evolved in the centre of dispersion. " These migrant 

 types continue to evolve in certain respects, such as brain- 

 capacity, which are advantageous in any habitat, but pre- 

 serve most of their primitive characters as the environ- 

 mental pressure is less in amount and more variable in 

 direction." These are not mere suppositions ; actual evidence 

 is produced to show.' that the oldest genera are to-day the 

 most southern, and it is suggested that had the connec 

 tion between north and South America existed earlier, we 

 might expect to find still more primitive forms in the 

 southern continent. This laiv of sKccessive radiation, as it 

 might be termed, will undoubtedly throw new light on 

 many problems of distribution and evolution. So far as 

 it is found to be true, it will teach us that we must be 

 cautious in thinking of the present home of the more 

 primitive types of a group as the original centre of that 

 group ; that the occurrence of similar forms in two southern 

 lands does not necessarily imply a former transoceanic 

 southern bridge ; or that the existence of a type in a 

 particular region necessarily implies any special fitness to 

 live in that physical environment. 



As Dr. Matthew states, much has been written on the 

 geographical distribution of modern animals from the 

 general standpoint which he advocates,^ but not enough 

 has been done to interpret the palaeontological facts in 

 connection with the modern. Our daily increasing know- 

 ledge of the Tertiary fauna and flora promises much in 

 this respect, and it is interestingly significant that in- 

 dependent studies of deer and plant-lice should lead to 

 similar conclusions. 



The Florissant Miocene Aphididje are given above as 

 numbering thirty. I have before me an additional one, 

 the largest of any yet found. It is a species of Anconatus, 

 differing from A. dorsuosus, Buckton, by the wholly pallid 

 (pale ochreous) abdomen, and the anterior wing about 



1 See. fnr instance, T. W. Taylor, " Monograph of the Land and Fresh- 

 water MoUusca of British Islands," vol. i., pp. 389-90. (igco.) 



NO. 2023, VOL. 78] 



9 mm. long. The legs are remarkably large, the middle 

 tibicE, for instance, about 3A rnm. long. This insect, found 

 this year at Station 13 B, may be termed Anconatus 

 gillettei, in recognition of Prof. C. P. Gillette's important 

 researches on Colorado plant-lice. Detailed measurements 

 will be given elsewhere. 



If it is asked how the Patearctic Aphids could possibly 

 have routed the Nearctic ones, as suggested, the answer 

 may be found in the supposition that the former brought 

 with them certain parasites or diseases, to which they had 

 become relatively tolerant, but which worked havoc among 

 the American species, just as some European diseases of 

 man have done in recent times when carried to .American 

 tribes. T. D. A. Cockerell. 



University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, July 21. 



THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM. 



AS was recorded in last week's N.^ture, on 

 Tuesday, July 28, a deputation, which included 

 Mr. F. Darwin (Cambridge), Prof. Cossar Ewart 

 (Edinburgh), Prof. Sedgwick (Cambridge), Dr. Marr 

 (Cambridge), Prof. Hickson (Manchester), Prof. 

 Bourne (Oxford), and Prof. Graham Kerr (Glasgow), 

 waited on the Prime Minister (The Rt. Hon. H. H, 

 Asquith, K.C., M.P.) in support of a petition sent to 

 the late Prime Minister last autumn requesting that 

 advantage should be taken of the present vacancy in 

 the directorship of the Natural History Museum to 

 hold an inquiry into the methods by which the 

 museum is governed. The deputation was introduced 

 bv Sir W. Anson, .M.P., Mr. Rawlinson, M.P., and 

 Sir H. Craik, M.P. 



From the statements made by the members of the 

 deputation it appears that the Natural History 

 Museum is administered by the trustees of the 

 British Museum, and that their principal librarian 

 is responsible for the Natural History Museum at 

 South Kensington as well as for the library and art 

 collections at Bloomsbury. For half a century 

 naturalists have been directing attention to the neces- 

 sity for some change being made in the adininistra- 

 tion of the natural history department of the British 

 Museum. In 1S58 Mr. Darwin wrote to Sir Joseph 

 Hooker that he could see many advantages in with- 

 drawing natural science from the " unniotherly wing 

 of art and archaeology," but he thought that the 

 " contempt for, and ignorance of, natural science " 

 was so profound " among the gentry of England " 

 that the time had not come when science could stand 

 alone. 



Some years later (1866), the situation appearing 

 more favourable, the most distinguished men of 

 science of the day (amongst others Darwin, Hooker, 

 Huxley, Newton, and Wallace), in a memorial to the 

 Government, expressed the opinion that " it is of 

 fundamental importance to the progress of the 

 natural sciences in this country that the administra- 

 tion of the national natural history collections 

 should be separated from that of the library and art 

 collections." 



In 1874 a Royal Commission on " Scientific In- 

 struction and the Advancement of Science " directed 

 attention to the statements of witnesses that it was 

 " unsatisfactorv that the national collections should 

 be managed by a body of gentlemen whose time is 

 in most cases fullv occupied by other important 

 duties, and the majority of them are not selected 

 with reference to any special qualifications for such 

 a post." These commissioners, in their fourth 

 report, recommended " that the occasion of the re- 

 moval of the natural history collection to South 

 Kensington ". . . " should be taken advantage of to 

 effect the desired change, and that on their new site 

 the collections should be removed from the control 

 of the trustees of the British Museum." As this 



