September 1, 1916] 



SCIENCE 



311 



really, a difference of " spelling." Scimitar, 

 simitar, simiter, cimiter, are four out of more 

 than thirty spellings of one word, and amoeba 

 and ameba are two spellings of one word; but 

 Ambystoma and Amblystoma, whatever their 

 status may be in zoology, are either two differ- 

 ent words, or else two forms, one erroneous, of 

 one word. No one asserts that they are two 

 different words. All who have spoken agree 

 that one is an erroneous form of the other. 

 Which was intended? Let it be decided. 



In all scientific compound names, intention 

 is supposed to be present; and for this reason 

 it will always be necessary that " science " 

 shall correct what " science " has erroneously 

 published; in other words, that Jones and 

 Robinson shall correct the errors of their dis- 

 tinguished predecessors Brown and Smith. 

 This is good science, and good fun, too, for 

 Jones and Robinson. What but this, indeed, 

 is the progress of science? 



Is there not a scientific error in the attitude 

 of those scientific men who prefer to take the 

 first form and " have done with it " ? Can 

 science have done with anything? What the 

 advocates of priority do is, in fact, to turn 

 over an unfinished job to other men. This is 

 reasonable enough, if they will let the other 

 men finish it. 



It were to be wished that the advocates of 

 rule in zoologic nomenclature would play one 

 game or the other — either the good old Pres- 

 byterian euchre, in which words are borrowed 

 or manufactured orthodoxly from Greek and 

 Latin sources (admitting, also, some heathen 

 of the better sort), or else the less exacting 

 Mohammedan solitaire, whose first law is the 

 chance priority of print. It is hardly fair to 

 mix with cards bearing the good old Presby- 

 terian names of Amblycephalus, Amblychila, 

 Amblycorypha, Amblyopsis, Amblyrhynchus, 

 and the rest, a card bearing the Mohammedan 

 and solitaire appellation of Ambystoma. (I 

 am assuming that euchre and solitaire are 

 played with cards.) 



If this isolated Ambystoma is correctly 

 formed, tell us how it is done and what it 

 means. And then throw it out, nevertheless; 

 for the scientific reason that it would be for- 



ever confusable with the similar -seeming words 

 with which, on the Mohammedan theory, it 

 has no connection. 



Notwithstanding all the politic reports and 

 mosaic codes of the committees on nomen- 

 clature, committees which have done an in- 

 estimable service to science, and which should 

 be liberally supported by money and advice 

 (two sources of enrichment, of which one will 

 never fail), I hold that it is the duty of scien- 

 tific men to correct the errors which they find 

 within their own domain; or at least not to 

 enforce or prolong any error, great or small, 

 by devotion to any rule of priority or any 

 other hand-made rule intended to serve con- 

 venience in registration, regulation, indexing 

 or proofreading. It is not right to make a 

 rule out of chance and to call it a rule of 

 order. It is not right to set up priority, which 

 is a part of history, and to call it science, 

 which is a part of reason. 



If we will use the language of science, we 

 must apply the science of language. And we 

 must not ignore or reject that science on the 

 ground that " the authorities differ " or that 

 " the doctors disagree." Let me end with a 

 hard saying: The doctors do not disagree. It 

 is only some writers and advisers and com- 

 mittee men who disagree. The rest of us are 

 agreeably unanimous. Let every man of sci- 

 ence place his hand upon his heart, and agree! 

 Charles P. G. Scott 



YONKERS, 



July 28, 1916 



AMBYSTOMA 



In connection with Professor M. W. Lyon, 

 Jr.'s note on "Ambystoma not Amblystoma," 

 I may mention the fact that Dr. Willard G. 

 "Van Name used Ambystoma as the scientific 

 generic name of the spotted salamander in 

 Webster's " New International Dictionary " 

 which was published in 1909. 



F. .Sturges Allen 



THE LIME REQUIREMENT OF SOILS 



To the Editor of Science: At this time 

 when methods for the determination of the 

 lime requirement of soils are receiving much 



