652 



SCIENCE. 



|Voi,. II., No. 4U 



Aryan dialects which preceded the Sanskrit in India. 

 It has no inflections proper, but uses prepositions 

 for the expression of case-relation?, and forms tenses 

 Tery mucli in the same way as tlie Englisli. It is note- 

 worthy that this language, though a slightly devel- 

 oped one, has a clear distinction of gender; but the 

 value of gender-distinction as a linguistic differentia 

 is not yet well made out. In common with most of 

 the languages of eastern Asia, the Khasi has a system 

 of tones. The same thing is true of the Siamese, on 

 which Mr. George presented a paper, illustrating the 

 . tonic distinctions by a short Siamese reading. 



The paper of the most general interest was one on 

 the origin of the Phoenician alphabet, read by Mr. J.P. 

 Peters of New York. For some years past, most stu- 

 dents of the subject, accepling for the present the con- 

 clusions of the late Viconite E. de Roug(5, have been 

 inclined to derive the Phoenician from the Egyptian. 

 This conclusion is based on the close relations existing 

 between Egypt andPlioenicia in historical times, and 

 on the similarity between certain letters in the two 

 alphabets. But recently the Babylonian-Assyrian 

 alphabet has begun to press its claims to be considered 

 the i^arent of the Phoenician. It is almost certain 

 that Phoenicia was closely connected with the Tigris- 

 Euphrates valley at a time earlier than the oldest 

 known historical monument. As long ago as 1S77, 

 a German scholar, Deecke, came forward as the 

 champion of the Babylonian alphabet; but he com- 

 mitted the anachronism of deriving the old Semitic 

 or Phoenician from the more modern ' c^irsive ' cunei- 

 form. Mr. Peters took the most ancient cuneiform 

 signs, and compared them with the oldest Pluoenician, 

 finding in several instances striking resemblances. 

 He urged besides, against the Egyptian origin, the 

 fact that the Phoenician alxihabet contains no vowels, 

 while the hieroglyphics have distinct vowel-signs 

 [though this is true oi the Babylonian also] ; and, 

 furtlier, the fact that tlie Egyptian had a large num- 

 ber of different signs for the same sound, and would 

 present greater difficulties in the way of deriving an 

 alphabet than the Babylonian, which had fewer homo- 

 phones. The question is yet far from being settled, 

 one serious obstacle in the way of the Assyriologists 

 being the difficulty of determining the oldest forms 

 of the cuneiform writing; but all such sober inves- 

 tigations as that of Mr. Peters must advance the de- 

 sired solution. Meantime the Egyptologists, on their 

 part, are bringing forward new material. 



The edition of Manu, which was undertaken by the 

 eminent English Sanskritist, Mr. Burnell, has been 

 committed by the publishers, since his death, to Mr. 

 E. W. Hopkins of New-Yorlc City, who sent on two 

 papers, — one on the Nandini commentary on Manu, 

 the other on the quotations from Manu in the Maha- 

 bharata. The former was a defence of the commen- 

 tary in question: the latter was a contribution to the 

 criticism of the Manu text. Mr. Hopkins took those 

 passages in the Mahabharata which are introduced by 

 the phrase, ' Thus said Manu,' and, finding tliat they 

 do not always agree with the existing text of the laws, 

 concluded that both texts rest on an older tradition; 

 that Manu was an ancient sage, with whom tradition 



connected a number of laws, whence grew the col- 

 lection called by liis name. 



Professor Whitney read on the variants of the Sama- 

 Veda, coming to the conclusion (against the position 

 of Bcnfey and Weber, hitherto generally accepted), 

 that, in most cases in which the Sama text differs from 

 that of the Rig, tlie latter is entitled to the prefer- 

 ence. Professor Bloomfield of Johns Hopkins uni- 

 versity, who is engaged in editing the Kau(;ika-Sutra 

 to the Atharva-Veda, sent an account of the manu- 

 scripts of the Sutra in his hands, most of which he 

 had obtained through the kindness of English oflicials. 

 Mr. Brown made a short report of the recent Oriental 

 congress in Leiden, at which he was present. 



The next meeting of the society will be held ia 

 Boston, May 7, 1S84. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 

 Geology of Philadelphia. 



Dii. Pebsifou Fkazek's explanations of his use of 

 the term 'hydromica slate,' in his Lancaster-county 

 repbrt, as either 'not an equivalent for hydromica 

 schist' or as a 'misprint,' renders it evident that 

 he has changed his opinions since the writing of his 

 report on York and Adams counties. In lliat volume 

 the term ' hydromica slate' is employed ten times or 

 more to designate 'hydromica schists,' and in several 

 instances the terms are used synonymously. In two 

 instances, localities marked in his printed section as 

 hydromica schist are referred to in the accompanying 

 descriptive text as hydromica slate (v. sections 2 b, 

 4, and p. 94, 101). As is evident from the context 

 in a number of places, his 'hydromica slate' does not 

 mean 'chlorite slate,' but 'hydromica schist' as it is 

 elsewhere called (v. p. S3, 142, etc.). 



There is, however, equal objection to his use of 

 the term 'chlorite slate,' frequently employed in 

 his different reports to distinguish greenish portions 

 in the hydromica series. These are no more slates 

 than are portions of the adjacent hydromicas, which 

 are of identical structure. Nor, indeed, are they 

 true chlorites, having but a low percentage of m.agne- 

 sia. (A recent analysis of some of the greenest of 

 this so-called ' chlorite slate,' made for the writer 

 by Prof. S. P. Sharpies, gave only 4.28 % of magnesia. ) 



Hydromica slate, as meaning hydromica schist, is 

 also used several times in the report on Chester 

 county, and the synonymous terms ' talc slate,' ' mica 

 slate,' 'talc-mica slate,' 'talc-mica schist,' 'micaceous 

 talcose slate,' and 'South Valley Hill slates,' are era- 

 ployed more than fifty times in "the same report with- 

 out distinction between slate and schist. Professor 

 Rogers, as is well known, used most frequently the 

 expression 'talc-mica slate.' 



That the term 'slate' has been used synonymously 

 with 'schist' in the region of the South Valley Hill, is 

 not only shown by the indiscriminate use of those 

 terms by Rogers, Lesley, and Hall, but is apparent 

 in a remark by Dr. Frazer himself in the Chester- 

 county report, p. 279, where he says: — 



" South of tlie Vulley limestone, which only touches the 

 extreme nni^le of the township, .ire hydromiciis and mica-schists, 

 dipping iibout south 35', east —62". The southern contact of 

 limestone and xlaCe occurs in this corner. . .. . The hydromica 

 schists and mica-scliists to the south, which enclose this, ar© 

 principally vertical," etc. 



Now, as the only slates which occur at this local- 

 ity are hydromica slates belonging to the hydromica 



