OcrosEr 11, 1918] 
t 
paper, or that the Bureau of Standards should 
serve to the same end. Our technical institutions 
and colleges should also pay more attention to the 
manufacturing of paper and should add to their 
curriculum the manufacture of paper and lectures 
on the paper industry. 
But far more important is it that publishers 
and libraries and learned institutions should work 
together in such matters to the end that all publi- 
cations, books as well as periodicals, to be used 
and preserved by such institutions, should be 
printed on paper of good lasting quality. Such 
publications must have printed on their title-pages 
the words, ‘‘For Library Use.’’ To be sure, pub- 
lishers will charge more for such copies than for 
the ordinary ones. The libraries and learned in- 
stitutions will gladly agree to this. The same 
would apply to certain newspapers. 
I must believe that what has been pointed 
out above will be sufficient to invite attention 
to this most important question; and as the 
space in these columns is of unusual value its 
consideration will not be further touched at 
this time. 
Rosert Witson SHUFELDT 
Army Mepicat MusruM 
THE CANONS OF COMPARATIVE ANATOMY 
In the discussion in this journal’ of the 
so-called canons of comparative antaomy as 
illustrated in the vessels of angiosperms and 
Gnetales, Professor E. C. Jeffrey employs his 
canons (!) in the familiar methods of the 
believers in schrecklichkeit. As such methods 
in any field of activity have very little effect 
on the real issues, the writer declines to, be 
drawn into tempting retaliations or into dis- 
cussions of unnecessary side issues apparently 
intended as diversions, but proposes to end the 
matter, so far.as he is concerned, with a simple 
summary of the facts and the conclusions 
which have been drawn from them on both 
sides. 
1. Two of the canons (recapitulation and 
conservatism in certain regions) are beauti- 
fully illustrated in connection with the vessels 
in question. In regard to this statement Pro- 
fessor Jeffrey and I are in entire agreement. 
1 Sorence, N. S., Vol. XLVII., Nos. 1214, 1221 
and 1231. 
SCIENCE 
371 
2. The porous perforation of the vessel of 
Gnetum has been evolved by the enlargement 
and coalescence of circular, haphazardly-ar- 
ranged perforations (Ephedra type) which are 
themselves in turn derived from typical bord- 
ered pits. In regard to this statement also 
Professor Jeffrey and I are apparently in en- 
tire agreement; at any rate our disagreement 
is not based on it. 
3. The similar porous perforation of the 
vessel of higher angiosperms has been evolved 
by the disappearance of the bars from the 
perforations of the scalariform type found in 
lower angiosperms. With this statement Pro- 
fessor Jeffrey was in entire agreement when 
his very recent and excellent book “ The Anat- 
omy of Woody Plants” was written. On page 
379 of that work he wrote, “ The vessel with 
the porous type of perforation is clearly de- 
rived, as has been demonstrated in an earlier 
chapter, from the scalariform condition.” 
(See also pages 101 and 102.) In his latest con- 
tribution to this discussion he states, however, 
that in some cases it originates as described 
in statement (2) for Gnetwm. Nevertheless, 
inasmuch as he gives no instances of this 
phenomenon in angiosperms, and does not 
even mention it in his book, we may con- 
clude that statement (3), which is merely an- 
other way of expressing his own quoted state- 
ment, is essentially correct. 
4. From (2) and (3) it follows that the 
porous vessels of angiosperms and Gnetales, 
though similar, have been evolved in entirely 
different ways and therefore have no genetic 
connection. They can not, therefore, be used 
as evidence of relationship between these two 
great groups of plants. From this statement 
Professor Jeffrey dissents, apparently beliey- 
ing that it is not a legitimate inference from 
the given premises. To the writer it appears 
to be the only logical inference. 
W. P, THompson 
QUOTATIONS 
THE COORDINATION OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLI- 
CATION IN GREAT BRITAIN 
Tue Faraday Society arranged a meeting to 
consider the “Coordination of Scientific Pub- 
