746 



SCIENCE. 



[N.S. Vol. XVI. No. 410. 



able. As the case is similar to others which 

 have to be decided one way or the other, it is 

 worth while to discuss it briefly. 



Schlegel in 1846 described a fish from Japan 

 as Monacanthus oblongus. It turned out, how- 

 ever, that his description really covered two 

 entirely diflferent fishes. The description of 

 the adult related to a Pseudomonacanthus, 

 that of the supposed young, and also the figure, 

 to a Stephanolepis. Now, I should say that 

 in such a case the description purporting to 

 relate to the adult fish should go with the 

 name, although as a matter of fact the alleged 

 young may also have been adult. This would 

 be because (1) the author's conception of the 

 species would surely be primarily based on the 

 adult, and (2) the description of the adult 

 presumably would in all such cases have pri- 

 ority of place over that of the supposed young 

 or of the plate figuring the latter. 



Supposing, however, that these contentions 

 are not held valid, I would then say that the 

 first name given to one of the two species 

 should hold, the residue (i. e., the other species) 

 carrying the original name. Now it happens 

 that the first new name given was Monacan- 

 thus Broeki, Bleeker, 1857.* This name per- 

 tains to Schlegel's supposed young, so on both 

 counts the name given by Schlegel belongs to 

 the fish described as adiilt. Nevertheless, Dr. 

 Jordan and Mr. Fowler, following Dr. Giin- 

 ther, give the Schlegelian name to the fish de- 

 scribed as the young, and call the other by 

 Giinther's name, modestus, proposed as late as 

 18Y7. According to my view, the fishes should 

 be: 



1. Stephanolepis Broehi = Monacanthus 

 Broehi, Bleeker. 



2. Pseudomonacanthus ohlongus = Monor 

 canthus ohlongus, Schlegel (part) ;^lf. mo- 

 destus, Giinther. 



It is also to be remarked that the name 

 ohlongus is more suggestive of the latter than 

 of the former fish, judging from the figures. 

 t. d. a. cockeeell. 

 East Las Vegas, 



New Mexico. 

 * According to Jordan and Fowler, M. frenatus, 

 Peters, 1855, is possibly applicable; if so, it is 

 an earlier name for the same fish. 



COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF ANIMALS. 



To THE Editor of Science: In the letter 

 entitled ' The Strength of Ants,' in your issue 

 of September 26, it was observed that an ant 

 weighed 3.2 mg. and a grasshopper which it 

 was dragging weighed 190 mg. If one desires 

 to magnify the ant and calculate the corre- 

 sponding strength which might be expected, it 

 ai^pears that if the animal be doubled in 

 lineal dimensions its weight will be multiplied 

 by the cube of two or 8; while its strength, 

 which is doubtless determined by the cross- 

 section of its muscles, will be multiplied by 

 the square of two or 4. Now suppose that 

 this small animal is multiplied in size 300 

 times in length and correspondingly in 

 breadth and height, so that its weight will 

 approximate to 3.2 mg. multiplied by 300 

 cubed = 86.4 kg. Whereas if its strength is 

 represented by a weight of 190 mg., this multi- 

 plied by 300 squared = 17.4 kg. These figures 

 will correspond to a man weighing 190 pounds 

 dragging 38.5 pounds, a proportional strength 

 with which we are very familiar. 



F. P. Dunnington. 



Univeesity of Virginia, 

 October 20, 1902. 



a biographical INDEX OF THE MEN OF SCIENCE 

 OF THE UNITED STATES. 



At the request of the executive committee 

 of the Carnegie Institution I am compiling a 

 biographical index of the men of science of the 

 United States. It is intended in the first 

 instance for the use of the institution, but it 

 will probably also be published. The index 

 should include all those who have carried on 

 research in science, the term, however, being 

 used in its narrower sense so as not to include 

 on the one hand philology, history, economics, 

 etc., nor on the other hand medicine, engineer- 

 ing, education, etc., except in so far as these 

 applied sciences may contribute to pure 

 science. 



During the summer I sent to a large list 

 of names (some 8000) a blanls; with the re- 

 quest that it be filled in and returned. The 

 blank asked more especially for information 

 in regard to the scientific career and work of 

 those to whom it was addressed. The re- 



