FEBRUARY 8, 1901. ] 
met with when an attempt is made to depart 
from the principle of the method by the intro- 
duction of an arbitrary symbol. Professor 
Mark (Scisncr, January 4, 1901) proposes that 
the sixteen hundreds shall be denoted by 1600, 
etc., the seventeen hundreds by 1700, etc., the 
eighteen hundreds by ’00, etc., and the nine- 
teen hundreds by :00, ete. This method could 
be of value only if accepted universally, or at 
least by all scientific writers. The confusion 
introduced by inadvertently writing ’23 for 1923 
will be as great as if one had actually written 
1823. But is it likely that this confusion will 
be avoided, seeing that many people already 
have dated letters and so forth’00 or 701, mean- 
ing 1900 and 1901? Setting this objection aside 
for the present, we note what difficulty Pro- 
fessor Mark has in finding a suitable symbol for 
the nineteen hundreds, and we wonder what is 
to be done with the next century, and with the 
one after that, and soon. If we are to settle 
this question in a scientific spirit, let us attempt 
something better than an apostrophe for 18, a 
colon for 19, a hyphen, say for 20, a dagger for 
21, and such avbitary methods, all for the sake 
of saving an em space here and there or a few 
tenths of a second per annum. The irritation 
induced by the constant repetition of 18 or 19 
is the least of the penalties we have to pay for 
the possession of ten fingers, and it is hardly 
enough to induce us to attempt yet once more 
some new method of notation. I therefore 
dismiss as impracticable all suggestions that 
familiar numerals should arbitrarily or even 
with some show of reason be replaced by punc- 
tuation marks, or by letters of any alphabet, or 
by ideographs, or by musical notes. But, seeing 
that the majority of papers referred to by any 
writer are, and in most cases will be, those of 
the hundred years immediately preceding the 
date of his own writing, I suggest that the 
apostrophe should be used, by those who like 
such self-saving devices, for all those years and 
for them alone. Professor Mark when he wrote 
in 1899 used the apostrophe for all the years 
1800 to 1899. In 1901 let him use it for the 
years 1802 to 1901; in 1923, if, as we hope, 
he be still active, let him use it for the years 
1824 to 1923. This plan seems to be more in 
accord with general usage. ‘Who fears to 
SCLENCE. 
231 
speak of 798’? did not cease to be intelligible 
to everyone, until the year ’98 again came 
round. For all years more than a hundred 
back, or in any case of doubt, let us use the 
full number ; and more particularly should it be 
used in the dating of important letters, of pub- 
lications, and of formal entries in museum reg- 
isters, or similar volumes of permanent historic 
importance. F. A. BATHER. 
NATURAL History MusEum, 
Lonpbon, ENGLAND. 
A FURTHER APPEAL TO ALL LOVERS OF BIRDS. 
ONE year ago all the sea birds breeding along 
our coasts seemed doomed to extinction at the 
hands of the milliners, in spite of their beauty 
and incalculable services as scavengers, and as 
guides to fishermen and mariners. 
The American Ornithologists’ Union, alarmed 
at the prospect, appointed a special committee 
to devise means for the preservation of these 
birds. This committee, aided by the press, 
appealed to the bird-loving public for funds with 
which to hire wardens to guard the sea birds 
while they were on their breeding grounds. 
The contributions received in response to 
this appeal were sufficient to secure faithful 
wardens for the protection of all the colonies 
still left on the coast from Cape Charles, Vir- 
ginia, northward to Maine. 
The encouraging results of the efficient pro- 
tection given the birds during the season of 
1900 prompts the American Ornithologists’ 
Union to continue its efforts during the coming 
breeding season and to extend, if possible, the 
work to the South Atlantic and the Gulf coasts, 
where there is even greater need of bird pro- 
tection than in the north. 
At the last session of Congress a Federal law 
was enacted, known as the Lacey Act, which 
gives by far the strongest protection ever fur- 
nished to bird or beast in the United States, as 
it makes it a punishable offense to export from 
a State any bird or animal unlawfully killed 
therein, or to receive such bird or animal in 
any other State. The common carriers are 
even now refusing to transport birds and ani- 
mals in view of the heavy penalty attached to 
a violation of the Lacey law. It is believed by 
the committee that the vigorous enforcement 
