June 2, 1899.] 



SCIENCE. 



777 



To write any compreheusive review of the 

 extraordinarily diverse matter in the three 

 volumes before us would be impossible for a 

 single individual, however unlimited his time. 

 The papers following the Smithsonian Report 

 are representative of the various branches of 

 science, and the general reader will gain from 

 them a fair idea of what is now being done by 

 scientific workers. Most of them have appeared 

 elsewhere, but English-speakers will be glad to 

 have the translations of Dr. L. Kiinigsberger 

 on ' The Investigations of Hermann von Helm- 

 holtz on the Fundamental Principles of Mathe- 

 matics and Mechanics,' Professor A. Cornu on 

 ' Physical phenomena of the upper regions of 

 the atmosphere,' O. Wiener on 'Color pho- 

 tography by means of body colors, and Me- 

 chanical color adaptation in nature,' Dr. 

 Heim on ' The biologic relations between 

 plants and ants,' H. Meyer on 'Bows and 

 arrows in Central Brazil,' and J. de Morgan's 

 'Account of the work of the service of an- 

 tiquities of Egypt and of the Egyptian Insti- 

 tute during the years 1892, 1893 and 1894.' As 

 an example of work carried out under the 

 auspices of the Smithsonian Institution, we are 

 presented with Dr. J. Walter Fewkes' ' Pre- 

 liminary account of an expedition to the Pueblo 

 ruins near Winslow, Arizona, in 1896,' which 

 expedition, it may be noted, accomplished its 

 work some weeks after the annual report was 

 transmitted to Congress. Other communica- 

 tions that appear to be published here for the 

 first time are : ' Was primitive man a modern 

 savage?' by Talcott Williams ; '^Memorial of Dr. 

 Joseph M. Toner,' by Ainsworth R. Spofford, 

 and 'William Bower Taylor,' by W. J. Rhees. 

 The rest of the articles are reprints, mainly 

 from the Proceedings of the Royal Institution of 

 Great Britain and from Science. 



The more technical papers based on the col- 

 lections in the U. S. National Museum are con- 

 tained in Vol. XX., of the Proceedings of the 

 Museum. In pursuance of the excellent policy 

 pursued by the Institution, these have already 

 been issued in pamphlet form, so as not to delay 

 the publication of important scientific novelties. 

 But it is to be wished that this policy could be 

 carried into eflfect in a more practical manner. 

 Let us take two examples. The volume opens 



with an elaborate and (thanks to the Elizabeth 

 Thompson fund) richly illustrated work on the 

 Rocky Mountain locust and its allies, entitled 

 ' Revision of the Orthopteran group Melanopli 

 (Acridiidie), with special reference to North 

 American forms,' by that eminent entomologist 

 and bibliographer, S. H. Scudder. The work 

 contains numerous new species and new genera. 

 A key to the genera is given, and is said to- 

 have been ' Issued in advance in the Proceed- 

 ings of the American Academy ;' but from be- 

 ginning to end no hint is given as to the pre- 

 vious publication of the paper as a whole, and 

 9 workers out of 10 would be as likely as not to 

 give it the date of the bound volume, which the 

 title-page states to be 1898, but which, one may 

 hazard a guess, was really 1899.* The tenth 

 worker might have received the previously is- 

 sued separate copy of Mr. Scudder' s paper,^ 

 though it was unknown to the laborious com- 

 piler of the section Insecta in the Zoological' 

 Record for 1897 — a somewhat important fact in 

 in this connection ; or he might chance to see- 

 in the table of contents the aflBxed date, 'De- 

 cember 28, 1897.' Is this date intended for the- 

 date of previous publication ? If so, a state- 

 ment to that effect should have been repeated) 

 at the beginning or end of the article itself. 

 Even the previously issued separate copies of 

 these articles do not bear the exact date. The 

 paper wrappers give the year (truthfully, let 

 us hope !), but what we have been led to expect 

 from American systematists is at least the- 

 month, if not the day or even the hour of pub- 

 lication, printed on the sheet itself. In the- 

 second example that we shall take, matters are- 

 more complicated. No. 1132 is ' Preliminary 

 diagnoses of new mammals* * * -» from the- 

 Mexican border * * * ' by Dr. E. A. Mearns. 

 The competition between the describers of spe- 

 cies in this class is now so keen that the de- 

 mand for dates is imperative. The Smithsonian 

 meets the appeal with its wonted generosity. 

 It gives three dates : the date of the bound 

 volume, 1898 [or 1899] ; ' Advance sheets, 

 March 5, 1897 ;' and again, 'January 19, 1898.' 

 What, then, is the date of Neotoma cumulator 

 *At any rate the volume has not yet been received 

 by the British Museum (Natural History), 22 April,. 

 1899. 



