AvaustT 11, 1899.] 
unsatisfactory. There are no indications 
that the Editors of the four Biological 
Divisions, Paleontology, Zoology, Botany 
and Physiology, have cooperated to produce 
a uniform scheme of treatment. On the other 
hand, although these sciences are in their 
nature closely connected, they receive an 
entirely diverse classification. Physiology, 
moreover, receives a treatment of minute 
sub-division which not only contrasts with 
the large sub-divisions of the other branches, 
but appears to us to be too far detailed. 
The most radical fault, in our opinion, is 
the separation of living and extinct mem- 
bers in many cases of the same families and 
genera in the great divisions of Paleon- 
tology (including plants and animals), Zo- 
ology and Botany. This great catalogue 
should open a new century and signalize 
modern belief that living and extinct types 
must be considered together. It may be 
urged that many faunze are wholly extinct 
and are studied exclusively by Paleontolo- 
gists. On the other hand, no scientific line 
of demarcation can probably be drawn, and 
if living and extinct types are not studied 
together they certainly should be. Among 
the Vertebrates the separation of the living 
and extinct forms is at present a calamity. 
Zoologists must beepme familiar with Pale- 
ontology whether they prefer to do so or 
not. It is impossible, for example, to 
understand the modern races of dogs with- 
out studying the Oligocene races and their 
ancestors. 
Under Paleontology the Editor proposes 
to give a complete catalogue of paleonto- 
logical papers upon their zoological side. 
This would necessitate a double system of 
cataloguing for every paleontological paper, 
a needless waste of money and time. 
The second radical fault, hardly less 
serious than the first, is the fundamentally 
different classification observed in Paleon- 
tology, Botany and Zoology. The Paleon- 
tological schedule is wholly unintelligible 
SCIENCE. 
to us. It is partly Biological, partly 
Bibliographical. What unity is there ina 
system of classification which is based upon 
such diverse lines as are observed in O1 
and 02? Where are the lines drawn be- 
tween 00 and 25? 
In our opinion, Paleontological classifi- 
cation should be identical with Zoological ; 
it would be only necessary to add Geo- 
logical distribution and to deduct cell pro- 
cesses; development could remain because 
we have considerable embryological data 
in extinct forms. 
The Zoological classification is much 
better, although subject to considerable 
criticism in matters of detail. Why should 
Botanical classification differ so funda- 
mentally from the Zoological? Modern 
Botany is pursued upon exactly the same 
lines as modern Zoology ; for instance, cell 
processes, or Cytology, are now pursued as 
ardently by botanists as by zoologists. 
Hewry F. Osporn.’ 
M. BOTANY. 
TuHE scheme of classification adopted is 
not, in our judgment, as satisfactory as a 
decimal system would be. A number ap- 
plied to a subject here means nothing defi- 
nite, unless it is accompanied by a letter 
also, whereas in a decimal system each 
number would mean only one subject and 
could not possibly be confused with any- 
thing else. 
The examples of classification of subjects 
indicate an attempt at too great detail, as, 
for instance, in the case cited ‘ on some new 
plants from Somali-land,’ the attemptis made 
to give a detailed synopsis of contents of the 
article, giving names of species described 
with pages of publication cited, etc. Such 
details belong more properly to an index to 
systematic botany rather than to a more 
general index to periodical literature, which 
it would seem to us is all that should be at- 
tempted. Such a title as the above need 
