504 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVI. No. 668 



recognize the boundless ramifications of all 

 animal stocks. 



The elders assumed certain forms as 

 highest and ranged their series from high 

 to low ; the sons commence their series with 

 the most generalized types and progress 

 from the less generalized to the more spe- 

 cialized. 



PROSPECTS AND NEEDS 



In numerous old systematic and descrip- 

 tive works— but in many cases not very 

 old — the skeleton and other anatomical de- 

 tails were noticed in connection with the 

 species described, but not seldom some of 

 those details, if rightly interpreted, would 

 be in contravention of the classification 

 adopted. In fact, the anatomy was to all 

 intents and purposes treated as an offering 

 of curious but useless infonnation. Such 

 conceptions, happily, are mainly— but not 

 entirely— of the past, and we may live to 

 welcome the day when every animal will 

 be treated as whole. Systematic zoology 

 will then be regarded as the expression of 

 our knowledge of the entire structure and 

 as an attempted equation of the results 

 obtained by investigations of all kinds. In 

 fact, systematic zoology is simply an at- 

 tempt to estimate the relative importance 

 of all structural details and to correlate 

 them so that their relative values shall be- 

 come most evident. It is the scientific out- 

 come of all anatomical or morphological 

 knowledge and the aim is to arrange the 

 animal groups in such a manner as to show 

 best their genetic relations and the succes- 

 sive steps of divergence from more or less 

 generalized stocks. 



One consummation devoutly to be 

 wished for is general acceptance of a 

 standard for comparison and the use of 

 terms with as nearly equal values as the 

 circumstances admit of. There is a great 

 difference in the use of taxonomic names 



for the different classes of the animal king- 

 dom. The difference is especially great be- 

 tween usage for the birds and that for the 

 fishes. For the former class, genera, fami- 

 lies and orders are based on characters of a 

 very trivial kind. For example, the family 

 of Turdidse, or thrushes, relieved of 

 foi'mal verbiage, has been distinguished 

 from neighboring families solely because 

 the young have spots on the breast, but 

 even this distinction is now known to fail 

 in some instances. Extremely few, if any, 

 of the families of oscine birds are based 

 on characters of a kind which would be 

 regarded as of family value in other 

 classes of vertebrates. On the other hand, 

 many of the families and genera of fishes 

 are made by some excellent authorities to 

 include types separated by striking pecul- 

 iarities of the skeleton as well as the 

 exterior. The mammals are a class whose 

 treatment has been mostly intermediate be- 

 tween that for the birds afld that for the 

 fishes. Its divisions, inferior as well as 

 comprehensive, have been founded on an- 

 atomical characters to a greater extent 

 than for any other class. Its students 

 are numerous and qualified. Mammalogy 

 might therefore well be accepted as a 

 standard for taxonomy, and the groups 

 adopted for it be imitated as nearly as 

 the differing conditions will admit. The 

 families of birds would then be much re- 

 duced in number and those of fishes in- 

 creased. All the active herpetologists and 

 ichthyologists of the United States have 

 subordinated their own beliefs and ideas 

 as to what would have been most desirable, 

 to a greater or less extent, to approximate 

 the desirable reduction of the terms ad- 

 mitted by them to a standard uniform 

 with that adopted by mammalogists. If 

 others would likewise sacrifice their own 

 predilections, the lamentable inequality of 

 usage now prevalent would be much less; 



