Pebbuakt 20, 1914] 



SCIENCE 



286 



so, but remain brown. I am anxious to trace 

 the southern boundary of the region in which 

 these animals make this change — ^become 

 white. I should be grateful, therefore, if any 

 naturalist, trapper, or other reader of this 

 journal, who believes he lives near this sought- 

 for southern boundary, would send me word 

 upon a post-card, or by letter, whether the 

 weasels in bis locality turn completely white, 

 or only partly so, or whether some turn and 

 others do not; and also whether the change 

 appears to him to depend upon the coming 

 of snow — that is does its time vary with the 

 comparative earliness or lateness of a season? 

 Ernest Ingersoll 

 364 West 121st Street, 

 New Yoek City 



scientific men and phonetic spelling 



To THE Editor of Science: Professor J. C. 

 Arthur, of Purdue University, says in Science 

 for October 10, 1913,, p. 513 : 



He is a brave man who openly throws stones at 

 another man's domicile, even if he justify the act 

 as altruistic, knowing the proverbial danger in- 

 curred. 



Professor Arthur thereupon bravely throws 

 stones at Dr. Dabney, and now I wish to throw 

 a few friendly stones at Professor Arthur, at 

 Dr. Dabney and at most of the other eminent 

 contributors to Science. True, 



It is not the proper plan 



For any scientific gent to whale his fellow man. 



But throwing stones is not " whaling," and 

 all scientific gents will agree that a mere 

 philologist can not be himself a scientific gent 

 according to the statute in that case made and 

 provided. 



Professor Arthur chides Dr. Dabney for 

 using the phrase " fungus growth," though he 

 would excuse the phrase if it were intended for 

 " fungous growth," " with the o accidentally 

 omitted." But suppose Dr. Dabney, like some 

 other scientific men, for example Dr. Wilder, 

 should spell the adjective fungous with the o 

 intentionally omitted ? Would that be a viola- 

 tion of " good English " or of " good gram- 

 mar"? Many scientific men would say so. 

 Other scientific men would not say so. 



The point that I make is that many con- 

 tributors to Science, in criticizing matters of 

 language and grammar, ignore a much more 

 important matter in the relation of science to 

 language. Even the gentlemen who write long 

 and interesting articles about nomenclature, 

 and insist with vehemence on the retention of 

 this or that name or spelling or misprint, be- 

 cause it happened so (surely a free and easy 

 attitude in science), do not touch upon the 

 vital point. Most of them, by their example, 

 or by abstaining from utterance or action, are 

 preventing the scientific discussion, and the 

 scientific settlement, of important matters of 

 language relating to science. That is, they 

 will not consider or discuss, or help others to 

 consider or discuss, in print, the scientific no- 

 tation of the English language, or of other 

 languages. By their conservatism, obscuran- 

 tism, ignorance, indifference, apathy, hostility, 

 fury, cynicism, geniality, orthodoxy, call it 

 what you will (and it is some or all of these), 

 they prevent the editors and readers of the 

 journals of science from dealing with this 

 important matter of science. 



They may write to their journals about the 

 pronunciation of this or that word, sometimes 

 about the etymology of this or that word, but, 

 usually what they write, or at least what is 

 printed, is superficial, insufficient or inexact; 

 in a word, unscientific. 



The reason is, I suppose, that most of the 

 orthodox men of science do not know anything, 

 accurately, about the pronunciation of English 

 words, or about the sounds of English, or about 

 the sounds of any language. They do not know, 

 and will not try to find out, what symbols they 

 should or might use in order to indicate with 

 accuracy the sounds they wish to indicate or to 

 discuss. And even those who do know these 

 things, and can use, with a pen, an adequate 

 notation of sounds, can not present that nota- 

 tion in the pages of a scientific journal, unless 

 by a special arrangement with a more or les3 

 reluctant editor or group of editors, or at an 

 expense which the writer himself must meet. 

 In short, the orthodox scientific men of the 

 United States and of Great Britain are, in thia 



