May 29, 1914] 



SCIENCE 



785 



Various sub-departments of geology at 

 Cornell University have been consolidated 

 under one head and the committee of pro- 

 fessors which has hitherto administered the 

 affairs of the department has been dissolved. 

 Professor Heinrich Eies has been appointed 

 head of the department. 



Money is being collected to endow a pro- 

 fessorship of railroading in the Graduate 

 School of Business and Administration of 

 Harvard University, to be named in honor of 

 Mr. James J. Hill. 



Degrees will be conferred at commence- 

 ment upon 101 University of Illinois matricu- 

 lants of the years 1868-92, who completed -36 

 term credits and did not receive degrees. The 

 belated degrees will be conferred as of the 

 classes to which they belonged. These were 

 not granted at the usual time because the stu- 

 dents did not follow courses exactly prescribed. 



Charles Schuchert, professor of paleontol- 

 ogy, has been elected acting dean of the grad- 

 uate school of Tale University for next year 

 in the absence abroad of Dean Oertel. 



Dr. Frederick A. Sanders, professor of 

 physics of Syracuse University, has been 

 appointed head of the physics department of 

 Vassar College. 



Dr. C. 0. Adams, of the zoology department 

 of the University of Illinois, has accepted the 

 position of assistant professor of forest zoology 

 in the New York State College of Forestry at 

 Syracuse University. 



Herbert Fisher Moore, assistant professor 

 of theoretical and applied mechanics in the 

 engineering experiment station of the Uni- 

 versity of Illinois, has been promoted to be 

 professor of engineering materials. 



Mr. E. E. Burdon has been appointed uni- 

 versity lecturer in forestry at the University 

 of Cambridge. 



DISCUSSION AND COBSESPONDENCE 



MODESTY OVERWORKED 



To THE Editor of Science : I am very loath 

 to be drawn into the controversy on nomen- 



clature, but in a recent number of Science 

 (April 24) Professor Verrill has seen fit to 

 hold me up to obloquy for having wantonly 

 violated two rules, one of which is of his own 

 selection. I do not intend to discuss the ad- 

 visability of this rule further than to enquire 

 who is to be the arbiter of what is " obviously 

 obscene " ? Professor Verrill evidently regards 

 Urticina felina as an appellation falling under 

 this category, while others, equally modest, 

 might reject Metridium, which he accepts with 

 equanimity. Even granting that certain 

 Linnean names in their original form might 

 bring a blush to the cheek of some casta 

 Minerva, are they therefore, in their modern 

 associations, to be rejected on that ground 

 alone? Surely such a principle, consistently 

 applied, would deprive the world of many of 

 its greatest possessions in science, literature 

 and art! Honi soit qui mal y pense! 



Nor do I intend to notice the personalities 

 contained in Professor Verrill's letter, but, 

 when he disputes the correctness of my con- 

 clusions as to the validity of the names 

 Metridium senile and Urticina felina he is 

 entering upon a criticism to which one may 

 reply. His contention that Priapus senilis and 

 P. felinus are unidentifiable from Linnasus's 

 descriptions I have fully recognized, but I 

 also showed that Linnaeus himself, in the 

 twelfth edition of the " Systema," furnished 

 the basis for their correct identification, by 

 giving as references for them the recognizable 

 figures in Easter's " Opuscula subseciva," a 

 work that Professor Verrill carefully refrains 

 from mentioning. It is quite unnecessary to 

 repeat here the facts and arguments in sup- 

 port of this view, as they are fully set forth in 

 ™y paper, whose main object, so far as these 

 two species were concerned, was to show that 

 the confusion that has arisen in the synonymy 

 of their Linnean names was quite unnecessary 

 and that these names are valid according to 

 the ordinary rules of priority. Professor Ver- 

 rill thinks otherwise and prefers the specific 

 terms dianihus and crassicornis ; but why does 

 he reject Pennant's peniapetala, which appar- 

 ently antedates dianthus? Surely it, too, can 



