702 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XIX. No. 487. 



DISCUSSION AXD CORRESPONDENCE. 

 THE TITLES OF PAPERS. 



The writer is quite at one witli Professor 

 H. H. Wilder in his interesting protest, which 

 appeared in Science, March 18. No doubt 

 all in their younger days have indulged in 

 the same pleasure of lengthy titles. Masters 

 in rejuvenated science did the same; vide 

 Humphry Davy's papers at the beginning of 

 the nineteenth century. Descriptive titles ap- 

 pear to have good reason for their use. Mere 

 verbiage is objectionable in the presentation 

 of any scientific fact or principle, be it in the 

 title or in the body of the paper. Excusing 

 limitative prolix titles, not strictly descriptive, 

 on the plea of modesty, will not answer, as 

 the writers of papers realize as well as the 

 readers that no science is complete. 



Perhaps my experience is not very different 

 from that of others. Scientific literature 

 probably keeps pace in the rate of production 

 with modern novels. One neither cares nor 

 is able to read all, but he would like to know 

 what is going on. Some forty or fifty scien- 

 tific journals are placed on my desk every 

 thirty days. All deal more or less with that 

 division of science, chemistry, to which I have 

 the honor and pleasure of devoting my humble 

 labors. Even a specialist in the narrowest 

 sense can do better work if he know some- 

 thing of other fields of activity. The under- 

 signed finds it literally impossible to read 

 all the articles in his own branch, much less 

 labor thi'ough those of cognate subjects; con- 

 sequently he must depend upon the title or 

 the attached author's name in order to make 

 a wise selection. An exceedingly interesting 

 and valuable paper is published by an author 

 ^hom the reader happens not to know, the 

 title does not tell enough, the article is long, 

 life is short and one passes it by. Numerous 

 other causes preventing the reading of papers 

 come to mind, but do not require enumeration. 



Those journals which consist solely of ab- 

 stracts, not opinionated reviews, come near 

 offering a solution to the problem. This 

 brings out another tale of woe. Numerous 

 complaints have been made of the failure 

 on the part of abstractors, however conscien- 

 tious they may have been, to give really what 



the author meant to emphasize. Therefore, 

 the suggestion is pertinent that we have dis- 

 tinctive titles followed immediately by a con- 

 densed ' synopsis ' made hy the author. 



I am quite well aware that many papers in 

 some journals have a "" conclusion,' which one 

 must hunt for, and such an arrangement is in 

 accord with strict logic; but below is an ex- 

 planatory paragraph the writer recently placed 

 at the beginning of a series of some two 

 dozen papers on work in a narrow field. 



We shall adopt in reporting investigations upon 

 the rare earths the plan of succinctly stating in an 

 introductory paragraph the facts observed and 

 conclusions arrived at. Those desirous of famil- 

 iarizing themselves with the details may peruse 

 what follows at leisure. Perhaps others may care 

 to pursue a similar course. No doubt a wider 

 dissemination of the actual results arrived at 

 will come about and the labors of abstractors be 

 lessened and more accurate. Expediency in- 

 fluenced literary style before the twentieth cen- 

 tury. 



The writer believes such practice will ac- 

 complish the objects aimed at by Mr. Wilder 

 and himself, and is independent enough to con- 

 tinue it alone, unless the various editors are 

 too strenuous in their objections. 



Chas. Baskerville. 

 University of Nokth Carolina, 

 March 22, 1904. 



To THE Editor of Science : It is curious 

 that Mr. H. H. Wilder's article (Science, 

 March 18, 1904) should follow immediately 

 on Mr. F. H. Knowlton's protest agaiust a 

 particular solecism. The two represent dif- 

 ferent sides of the same subject. Theoret- 

 ically we must all support Mr. Wilder's plea 

 for brevity, and the broad principle governing 

 Mr. Bjnowlton's warning against ambiguity 

 should also find general acceptance. These 

 two principles are combined in recommenda- 

 tion (4) of the British Association Committee 

 on Zoological Bibliography and Publication, 

 namely, ' that it is desirable to ex^nress the sub- 

 ject of one's paper in its title, while keeping 

 the title as concise as possible.' The difficulty, 

 of course, is to be both precise and concise. 



Brevity. — Mr. Wilder's longest example con- 

 tains only thirty-seven words, and is excused 



