278 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVI. No. 922 



the English language exactly as we treat a 

 mathematical equation. There are fine dis- 

 tinctions in words that we can not abolish by 

 arbitrary rules. 



I quite agree with Mr. Kuser that " quite 

 common " is an incorrect expression as it is 

 ordinarily used, but I am very sure that 

 simple " common " does not fill its place, and 

 I am not altogether certain that " fairly com- 

 mon " quite expresses it either, though per- 

 haps that is the best substitute. 



" Tolerably common," though it has the 

 sanction of government usage, is also objec- 

 tionable on etym.ological grounds, as Mr. 

 Kuser points out. 



" Frequent " strikes me as objectionable be- 

 cause it is an adjective of time rather than 

 number or distribution in space. " Fairly 

 common " or " rather common " are prefer- 

 able, perhaps. 



The statement that " accidental is occa- 

 sional or rare " seems to me absolutely wrong. 

 All birds that occur only accidentally or 

 " casually " are rare, but not all rare birds can 

 be called accidental. The distinction is gen- 

 erally recognized, I think. The accidental oc- 

 currence of a bird is supposed to be due to 

 some stress of weather or similar outside force 

 or possibly some abnormal tendency in the 

 individual. No bird that is found regularly 

 in a given locality, no matter how rare it may 

 be, can be called accidental — ^unless, indeed, it 

 is a single individual that is found thus reg- 

 ularly. Mockingbirds are still rare in Massa- 

 chusetts, but they can no longer be called acci- 

 dental, and the same is true of the Iceland, 

 Kumlien's and glaucous gulls. 



Mr. Kuser says that " very rare is using an 

 unnecessary adverb, for rare is very rare," 

 but are there not degrees of rarity, and, if so, 

 why should we not be permitted to indicate 

 them ? Mr. William Brewster in " Birds of 

 the Cambridge Region," calls the mourning 

 warbler " rare in spring, exceedingly rare in 

 autumn." Is there not a decided advantage 

 in being able to make this distinction? 



Is not Mr. Kuser's definition of " scarce " 

 as indicating "that the bird mentioned was 

 at some previous time common" a purely 



arbitrary one? If so, how can he expect its 

 use in that sense to be generally adopted? 



Finally I suggest that Mr. Kuser's definition 

 of " irregular " be extended to cover the com- 

 plete absence of a species during some seasons. 



It was certainly worth while to call attention 

 to the common use of vague and inaccurate 

 terms in bird-lists, but as one who has made 

 many lists (mostly unpublished), I have ven- 

 tured to offer a few considerations which will 

 serve to indicate that the standardization of 

 the terminology is not so easy as it looks. 

 Francis H. Allen 



West Eoxbuky, Mass. 



POPULAR "science" AGAIN 



It is perhaps worth while calling the atten- 

 tion of the readers of Science to a fresh con- 

 tribution to the pseudo-scientific literature of 

 this country. In a recent number of Mother's 

 Magazine, Dr. Cornelia B. DeBey vtrites con- 

 cerning weeds as follows: 



Weeds may not seem (to you) to have much con- 

 nection with your home hygiene, but they do have. 

 Growing under the bedroom window, thriving in a 

 corner of the yard, lining a back walk, they are 

 constantly, through their nature, absorbing float- 

 ing air poisons. As the period of their annual 

 decay approaches, they throw oS these poisons and 

 the winds gather them up and sweep them through 

 the house. They are blown into your lungs and 

 into the lungs of your children. If perchance the 

 system of any one of you happens to be weak at 

 the time, a sickness may almost certainly he ex- 

 pected to follow. 



Weeds of the yard, like the foul dust of the 

 streets of a city, carry millions upon millions of 

 germs eager to thrive on any frail human or 

 animal body. Eoot out the weeds. Treat them 

 with scalding hot lye and wood ashes that have 

 been soaked in hot water. Attack them with hoe 

 and spade. Certain noxious weed growths, very 

 c'ommon to American yards, may breed diphtheria, 

 typhoid fever, scarlet fever and serious catarrhal 

 affections. 



The spirit of the foregoing is doubtless 

 higlily commendable, but the ideas of the 

 causes of diseases inculcated in such a state- 

 ment, are, at the very least, undesirable. 



Ernst A. Bessey 



