June 20, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



993 



To THE Editor of Science : I share Pro- 

 fessor Ganong's surprise that, after the word 

 'ecology' had been fully discussed in your 

 columns by many leading naturalists (of whom 

 Mr. Ganong was one), you should have admit- 

 ted my belated remarks. I can only suppose 

 that you recognized, what Mr. Ganong seems 

 to have forgotten, that I am not responsible 

 for the intervention of the Atlantic Ocean. 

 Still I confess that I should not for the mo- 

 ment have forgotten the difference between 

 the American and English languages. I can 

 only say that if the spelling 'ecology' be not a 

 vagary, the fact is to be regretted, since such 

 contractions undoubtedly mislead those who 

 wish to follow the excellent example of one 

 of your correspondents and to use the Greek 

 lexicon. I do not recognize the parallel with 

 'economy,' a word which came to us through 

 the French, and which is a familiar everyday 

 word, whereas 'oecology' is, and no doubt will 

 long remain a purely technical term. I infer 

 that here I have the support of Mr. Lester E. 

 Ward. 



As to the meaning of 'oecology,' I am glad 

 to find myself in entire agreement with Mr. 

 iVj Ganong and Dr. Theodore Gill. But when 

 the former belabors me for bringing a false 

 accusation against botanists, in saying that 

 they have restricted the meaning of the term, 

 . I must defend myself. I do not profess to 

 speak with the authority of Mr. Ganong, 

 whose studies in this branch of natural his- 

 tory we all admire ; I speak merely as a casual 

 skimmer of sxich publications as Science. It 

 certainly appeared to me that the two authors 

 whose papers suggested the recent discussion, 

 namely Mr. H. S. Eeed and Mr. H. G. Cowles, 

 used the term as meaning 'oecological plant- 

 geography.' The former entitles his paper 

 'The Ecology of a Glacial Lake'; does Mr. 

 Ganong seriously maintain that this means 

 'The science of the adaptation of a glacial 

 lake to its surroundings?' The latter (what- 

 ever he may have said 'in his elaborate 

 paper' here distinctly asserted that the 'phy- 

 togeographic ' was one of the two aspects pre- 

 sented by 'all ecological problems,' and his 



Ijaper dealt solely with this aspect. Your own 

 editorial explanation of the term laid even 

 more stress on geographic distribution. Sur- 

 prised at this, I consulted one or two botanical 

 friends, who assured me that by 'cecology' 

 they really did understand the study of plant- 

 associations. I therefore turned to Mr. Rob- 

 ert Smith's paper in Natural Science and 

 found that he did not use the term 'oBcology' 

 in the same sense as the botanists just alluded 

 to, but used instead the phrase 'oecological 

 plant geography,' which I quoted in my previ- 

 ous letter. Mr. Ganong need not have hunted 

 up all the instances of the words 'oecological' 

 and 'cecology' in Mr. Smith's paper. I admit 

 that the latter does occur once (Mr. Ganong 

 says 'four times'). But my whole point was 

 that Mr. Smith used it with its full and cor- 

 rect meaning, and that he did not mention 

 it as an equivalent for the subject of his 

 paper. 



I trust Mr. Ganong will now see that, 

 though my ignorance of botanical literature 

 may have led me to give too extended a form 

 to my statement, still the use of the term in 

 a restricted sense does actually obtain among 

 botanists. Indeed I am assured by a botanical 

 colleague that such use is increasing. I hope 

 therefore that some of Mr. Ganong's hearty 

 blows will have glanced off me on to the shoul- 

 ders of the real offenders. 



The whole object of a technical terminology 

 is precision and unambiguity of language. 

 The moment a term ceases to be used in the 

 strict sense of its original proposer, this object 

 is defeated.* The fact that there are signs 

 of such a change in the case of the word 

 'oecology' justifies a protest before it is too 

 late. 



E. A. Bather. 



MASS AND WEIGHT. 



To THE Editor op Science : I notice in your 

 issue of June 13, a communication from Dr. 

 Goodspeed, on tlie subject of 'Mass and 

 Weight.' I am glad that attention is called 

 " Professor W. M. Wheeler uses 'Ethology' "in 

 the place of the less satisfactory 'ecology'" 

 (Science XV., p. 774, May 16, 1902). Why is 

 'ecology' less satisfactory, if not for this very 

 reason? 



