238 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLVI. No. 1184 



the method of publishing separate bulletins 

 mailed directly to a selected list of those in- 

 terested may be quite satisfactory, but if the 

 publications of a laboratory cover a large range 

 of subjects it would seem to be preferable to 

 publish each paper in the journal which deals 

 with the department of science most akin to 

 that of the subject dealt with. If this is not 

 done, there is a grave danger that the paper 

 may be missed by the abstract journals and 

 may fall out of sight altogether, while in any 

 case the publication of single bulletins throws 

 a heavy burden on any investigator engaged 

 in compiling a bibliography of a subject. 



In this laboratory we have confined the pub- 

 lication of OUT scientific communications to 

 the recognized technical and scientific jour- 

 nals, and I find that our first fifty communica- 

 tions have been published in no less than sev- 

 enteen different journals, twenty-eight being 

 published in journals relating to some branch 

 of physics, five in chemical journals, and sev- 

 enteen in photographic publications. 



Since it is an advantage for all the papers 

 issued from one laboratory, which, naturally, 

 have a common interest, to be available in 

 some collected form, we issue periodically 

 bulletins containing abridgments of all our 

 scientific papers, the second volume of these 

 bulletins containing the papers published dur- 

 ing 1915 and 1916 being now ready. 



It would be of interest to learn the views 

 of others interested in this question as to the 

 relative advantages of the issue of separate 

 bulletins as compared with publication in 

 the current press. C. E. K. Mees 



Eesearoh Labobatoky, 

 Eastman Kodak Company 



popular science 

 Unwarranted deductions have been drawn 

 in a recent popularization of science by one of 

 our eminent paleontologists. Dr. H. F. Os- 

 born, not however in his own field, but in a 

 special field apparently unfamiliar to him. 

 Lest others may be misled into thinking that 

 the deductions are based on good evidence, 

 may I be permitted space to call attention to 

 them. 



Dr. C. D. Walcott has recently reported'- the 

 discovery in an Algonkian limestone of fossils 

 having appearances and associations which 

 give valid reasons, though not positive proof, 

 for thinking them to be bacteria. The finding 

 of these fossils in a limestone rock in associa- 

 tion with fossil algse as well as other related 

 facts lends support to his previous suggestion^ 

 that this limestone was probably partially de- 

 posited by bacterial action in a manner similar 

 to that described by G. H. Drew^ as taking place 

 to-day in the tropical waters about theBahamas. 

 A reference back to the article by Drew shows 

 that the bacterium which he found causing the 

 depositation of CaCOj is a denitrifier which 

 he has named Bacterium colds. It is an or- 

 ganism similar to other denitrifiers, possessing 

 the power to reduce nitrates to nitrites with 

 the later disappearance of the nitrite accom- 

 panied by the formation of ammonia and a 

 gas which, from the few simple tests made, 

 was in all probability free nitrogen. Like 

 other denitrifiers, this organism was found to 

 possess the power of utilizing organic carbon 

 in the form of sugars and even possessed the 

 power of secreting ectoenzymes capable of 

 liquefying organic nitrogen compounds like 

 gelatin. The precipitation of the calcium car- 

 bonate is explained as due to the increase in 

 the concentration of CO, ions caused by the 

 advent of (ISTHJjCOj, which is partially ion- 

 ized into NH^ and CO, ions. 



If the validity of the evidence that the fos- 

 sils found are bacterial in nature is admitted, 

 and it is assumed that the particular fossils in 

 question are of the organisms which were in- 

 strumental in having caused the deposit of 

 limestone, then the deduction might be drawn 

 that these fossils are those of denitrifying bac- 

 teria. The fact that Dr. Walcott refrained 

 from making this deduction is quite probably 

 due to the fact that he had a feeling that it 

 would be based on too many "ifs." 



Turning now to the article by Dr. Osborn* 



1 Proc. Nat. Acad. Soi., 1 : 256-257, 1915. 



2 Smiths. Misc. Coll., 64: 76-156, 1914. 



8 Papers from Tortugas Lab., 5 : 8-45, 1914, Pub. 

 182, Carn. Inst. Wash. 

 i Sci. Monthly, 3 : 289-307, 1916. 



