694 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. II. No. 47. 



made different, since we both collected them 

 together, I shooting as many as did he, and 

 our notes were of course the same, and as he 

 was the official ornithologist I very naturally 

 drew on him for the correct data, since my work 

 was given to him for his paper. If Mr. Stone will 

 look back he 'uill remember that we saw a large 

 number of small birds about Col. Glenns' camp 

 which we both thought were finches and 

 thrushes. We actually obtained very few 

 specimens, hardly enough to say that birds 

 were or were not abundant, and our short stay 

 at each point (half a day to a week) hardly 

 warranted us in drawing too fine conclusions. 

 In regard to the Trogan, I have a note of an- 

 other bird which I saw in the cactus thicket 

 which I believe was a Trogan, although 

 I will not be certain of the fact. It is quite 

 natural that the note books of two natural- 

 ists should vary. I am certain that my bird, 

 which was not shot, had a 'rose-colored breast.' 



In regard to the rarified atmosphere observed 

 on Mt. Orizaba, I still affirm that " my head 

 swam and my eyes became bloodshot" and my 

 companion, Mr. Stone, complained of the same 

 symptoms, and also of pain in the stomach. 

 This my note book shows. The figure of 

 Tyrannus vociferus was inadvertently made to 

 represent T. tyrannus by my brother, who made 

 the greater number of the drawings. I do not 

 find that I state anywhere that the figures were 

 drawn especially for this work. 



Lastly, let me state that the accusation of 

 plagiarism made by Mr. Stone is quite unjust, 

 as I trust I have shown in this communication. 

 The paper referred to by him (notes on the 

 Round-tailed Muskrat) was of but 21 pages, 

 and when information was used from Mr. Chap- 

 man's paper, he was given due credit. 



Of the thirty odd papers which have appeared 

 under my name this is the first that has caused 

 me to be accused of plagiarism. It seems a 

 very late date to call up a paper written seven 

 years ago, when some of my more recent papers 

 might answer the purpose fully as well. Finally, 

 let me state that every .statement made in my 

 little booklet has been written from notes taken 

 on the day each incident happened, and at no 

 time has my imagination been brought into play, 

 nor have I depended upon my memory. If Mr. 



Stone's notes vary from mine it is simply the 

 very natural result of two persons taking notes 

 independently. Mr. Stone's chief criticism 

 seems to be the fact that his copy did not con- 

 tain the reference slip of which I spoke. This 

 I will send him. The real errors, of which 

 there are many, will be corrected in a future 

 edition.* Frank C. Baker. 



Chicago Acadejiy of Sciences. 



science and cyclopaedias. 



To THE Editor of Science — Sir: Unpleas- 

 ant as it is to criticise any book, I think I am 

 justified in asking you to publish a few words 

 concerning the new edition of Johnson's Cyclo- 

 paedia. It appears to me that science is treated 

 so insufficiently that attention should be called 

 to it. 



An article of about five pages against the 

 scientific truth known as ' Evolution ' is in- 

 cluded in Vol. III. I think the Johnson Com- 

 pany cannot give the names of three men of 

 recognized scientific position who could be in- 

 duced to write in opposition to evolution. But 

 no article appears against ' homceopathy, ' al- 

 though the entire scientific world has con- 

 demned it. 



In the department of biography, the names 

 of Piatt and Croker may be found ; but Elmer, 

 (Weismann's great opponent) Mendeleeff,Ecker, 

 Biitschli, Horsley (Victor), Nageli, and a host 

 of other eminent men who have contributed to- 

 wards our knowledge of nature's laws, are 

 omitted. 



'Chemotaxis,' 'actinomycosis,' 'appendicitis,' 

 'metalloid,' and 'metagenesis' are not men- 

 tioned in this new cyclopedia. As the last two 

 words have been used -with more than one 

 meaning, it is especiallj^ important that refer- 

 ence books should contain them. 



' Panmixia ' is explained in eleven lines in the 

 article in favor of evolution by Mr. Kingsley. 



I have been unable to find one word concern- 

 ing that destructive little insect, ' orgyia len- 

 coslgma,' which must have interested many 

 people for several summers past. 



*I believe in exposing plagiarism wherever found, 

 hut do not see where that term can he applied to my- 

 self, in view of the facts which I have given. At the 

 time my proof was read I was seriously ill with 

 typhoid fever, and other parties corrected it. 



