November 24, 1922] 



SCIENCE 



603 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPOND- 

 ENCE 



RELATIVITY 



To THE Editor of Science: Like many 

 others, I commonly read whatever, from books 

 to mere notes, by Dr. Edwin E. Slosson, comes 

 to my notice. G«n6i-ally I am well pleased, 

 but an exception has just occurred. I very 

 much dislike that pleasantly written article on 

 Relativity in the Scientific Monthly for Novem- 

 ber, 1922. I dislike it because, giving the 

 words used the only meanings recognized by 

 layman and scientist alike, save a few special- 

 ists, several of the assertions are sheer non- 

 sense. Certainly no system of equations, how- 

 ever clever, can prove to one of common sense, 

 the existence of a real fourth dimension; that 

 time and space are not wholly independent; 

 that just because we and the Martians may be 

 unable to synchronize our clocks there is no 

 'now"; that time is "curved"; that a phenom- 

 enon may be seen before it happens; that the 

 mere inclusion of gravitation Ln a more com- 

 poreJiensive expression eliminates it from na- 

 ture; and so forth, and so on, throug'h a long 

 list of absurdities — ^absurd, that is, if their 

 customary meanings be given to the words used. 



Such expressions catch the attention, be- 

 cause they seem to declare the truth of amazing 

 paradoxes, but they are, after all, mighty poor 

 paradoxes, for their whole secret is notliing but 

 the assigning of strange meanings to familiar 

 words; a sort of cryptic writing. Naturally, 

 all such "crazy" expressions, crazy so long as 

 unexplained, inevitably breed contempt for 

 science and the scientist. 



Let us, then, in popularizing the thoughts of 

 specialists, first understand cleai'ly just what 

 tihose thoughts are, and then put them in the 

 words and circumlocutions of the other fellow. 

 The real relativist is not playing hob ivith our 

 understanding of nature, however different his 

 descriptions of certain phenomena may seem ; 

 but if the language of Hs average popularizer 

 is to be taken literally, and no hint, as a rule, 

 'is given of any other meaning, more topsy- 

 turvy indeed than the Land of Alice is this 

 finite, limitless universe thait simultaneously 

 will be, was, and is. w. J. Humphreys 



TINGITID/E OR TINGID/E 



In connection with this subject there are 

 some other points which I think should be men- 

 tioned. The Ionic genitive Tiyyiot, and the 

 Attic genitive -eio? show without a doubt that 

 the word Ti'yy'? is an i-stem. In Latin it 

 would be an i-stem, Tingi, and the genitive 

 Tingis. 



That there is a Latin word Tinge of which 

 the stem is Tingit does not concern us for 

 Fabrieius did not use it. He could easUy have 

 done so had he wished. While these words have 

 the same root they have different stems. The In- 

 ternational Rules instruct us to add -idse to the 

 ^tem of the name of the type genus. They do 

 not expect us to worry about other words based 

 on the same root. Fabrieius was a Greek purist 

 and he based his name on the word TtyY'^j 

 -iot, (Ionic, -£(i>C (Attic). In writing this word 

 in Latin he did so correctly using Tingis in the 

 genitive. The stem of the name of the type 

 genus is, therefore, Tingi. The family name 

 correctly should be Tingiidee. 



It is unfortunate that Westwood omitted one 

 i in writing the family name but before the days 

 of the International Commission this was 

 sometimes done. We often write Mantidae for 

 example based on Mantis, gecuitive -iot, (Ionic), 

 -£0)1^ (Attic). If we follow the International 

 Rules we must insert the other i and write 

 Tingiidse. And most of us agree that the rules 

 should be followed. 



A. C. Baker 



Bureau of Entomology 



A CHEMICAL SPELLING MATCH 

 In Science for October 20, Dr. L. 0. How- 

 ard comments in rather facetious vein upon a 

 chemical spelling match described in the num- 

 ber for September 29. He mentions his strug- 

 gles with chemical names during the twenty 

 years he was pennanent secretary of the A. A. 

 A. S. and rather approvingly drags in a quota- 

 tion from Forel, who seemed to think that no 

 true scientist uses long words. Dr. Howard is 

 more specific and applies this to chemistry. He 

 arouses not the resentment but the sympathy of 

 the chemist because of the suspicion that he is 

 envious of a body of knowledge (call it science 



