February 28. I9ii2. 



SCIENCE. 



357 



DISTINCT PHYLA OF RHINOCEROSES. 



In 1900 Osborn attempted to demonstrate 

 that tlie rhinoceroses, so far from being in- 

 cluded in a single genus, should be separated 

 into at least six lines of descent, which have 

 been distinct for so long a period that they 

 are almost entitled to subfamily value, extend- 

 ing back to the Lower Miocene and even prob- 

 ably into the Oligocene. Oldfield Thomas and 

 K. Lydekker, of the British Museum, have re- 

 cently accepted this conclusion in the main, 

 and the former* proposes to divide the living 

 types into three genera, namely. Rhinoceros, 

 the Indian forms (R. unicornis, R. sondaicus), 

 Dicerorhinus Gloger, the two-horned Suma- 

 tran types (Thomas points out that this name 

 has the priority over Ceratorhinus Gray), and 

 Dicer OS Gray for the African two-horned spe- 

 cies (this name taking precedence over Atelo- 

 dus Pomel). It is pointed out that Osborn 

 was in error in describing the smaller African 

 rhinoceros (D. hicornis) as dolichocephalic 

 since its head is much shorter than that of D. 

 simus, the white rhinoceros. Professor A. 

 jSTehring, of Berlin, also dwells in a recent 

 paper upon the extraordinary dolichocephaly 

 of the white rhinoceros, showing that the skull 

 surpasses in length even the longest recorded 

 skull of the woolly rhinoceros (D. tichor- 

 hinus). H. F. O. 



THE BOTANICAL SECTION OF TEE CON- 

 CILIUM BIBLIOGRAPHICUM IN ZURICH. 

 For some years past the increasing success 

 of the Concilium Bibliographicum in the zoo- 

 logical part of its work induced a number of 

 botanists to urge this institute to undertake a 

 botanical bibliography on similar lines to 

 those followed in zoology. Such a course was 

 also recommended by the chief of the Swiss 

 'Department of Interior' in awarding the 

 government subsidy to the work. Such wishes 

 have always found a sympathetic echo with 

 the committee in charge of the Concilium, as 

 well as with the founder of the Institution. It 

 seemed, however, unwise to extend the enter- 

 * ' Notes on the Type Specimen of Rhinoceros 

 lasiotis Sealter; \vith Remarks on the Generic 

 Position of the Living Species of Rhinoceros.' 

 Proc. Zool. Sac, June 4, 1901, pp. 154-158. 



prise to other branches, until the finances had 

 become quite satisfactory. For this reason, 

 no public statement of our intention in this 

 regard has been made, save such general al- 

 lusions as are to be found, for example, in the 

 presidential address to the Botanical Section 

 of the American Association meeting in 1900. 

 Eecently, however, the committee of the 

 new 'Association Internationale des Botan- 

 istes' has offered us means for organizing such 

 a section of the Concilium without involving 

 the latter in financial liabilities greater than 

 it could with safety assume. The negotiations 

 which were begun by telegraph late in Janu- 

 ary have been carried on with great rapidity, 

 and we are now able to announce the organi- 

 zation of a botanical section comiarising two 

 energetic Ziirich botanists. Dr. Stephan 

 Bruneis and Mr. Emil Schoch-Etzensperger. 

 For the year 1902 it is of course out of the 

 question to issue a card catalogue. The year 

 will be spent in preparation, so that the diiH- 

 culties encountered in the first two years of 

 the zoological card bibliography may be en- 

 tirely avoided. Also no attempt will yet be 

 made to record new species and genera, as is 

 done in zoology. For the present merely the 

 well-known bibliography of the G entralhlatt 

 will be continued, with certain minor improve- 

 ments. The main object of this announce- 

 ment is to make a direct personal appeal to all 

 those who publish botanical papers, urging 

 them to send copies to the Concilium Biblio- 

 graphicum, Ziirich-Neumiinster, Switzerland. 

 It is particularly important that this appeal 

 should be brought home to editors and pub- 

 lishers of periodicals containing botanical 

 notices; for the journals are far easier to ex- 

 cerpt than authors' reprints. Journals al- 

 ready reaching a Ziirich library need not be 

 sent ; but wfe hope that all botanists will assure 

 themselves of this fact before assuming that 

 their collaboration in the matter of securing a 

 given publication is unnecessary. The re- 

 sponse that zoologists in America have given 

 to our former appeals justifies the hope that 

 their botanical brethren will show similar 

 public spirit. 



Herbert Haviland Field. 



ZtJRICH. 



