400 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXII. No. 561. 



named another X. hirhyi, but this is a homo- 

 nym, as the rules are generally understood. 

 Hampson calls Holland's species X. cirhyi, 

 and it is imaginable that this might be inter- 

 preted as the necessary new name for the in- 

 sect. Since, however, it is only intended as a 

 new way of writing the old name, it seems 

 that Holland's insect should be renamed, sayj 

 X. liollandi. 



Enough has been said to show that the 

 proposed abandonment of k and w, if it is 

 not to iDrevail, should be checked as soon as 

 possible; or if it is to be the rule, should be 

 widely known, so that proposers of new names 

 may guide themselves accordingly. Personally, 

 I am totally opposed to it, on the ground that 

 names are merely symbols designating partic- 

 ular objects, and the most we can ask is that 

 they have a Latinoid ending, and are not too 

 long. Nevertheless, the matter is at present 

 an open one, and if most zoologists prefer to 

 follow Hampson and Elliot, the minority will 

 probably give in to their wishes, for the sake 

 of uniformity. On the other hand, if nearly 

 all are against the proposal, it would seem 

 that a few should not persist in making such 

 changes as those cited, unless they can con- 

 vince themselves that a very important mat- 

 ter of principle is involved. 



If the editor will allow it, I will herewith 

 ask all Avorking zoologists who are willing to 

 take the trouble to send me a post-card voting 

 for or against the substitution of c and v for 

 k and w, and I will list the names and send 

 them for publication in Science. I think 

 that the names should be published, for sev- 

 eral rather obvious reasons, not the mere 

 numbers pro and con. 



T, D, A. COCKERELL. 



Ukia'Eesity of Colorado, 

 Boulder, Colorado. 



' HAMMOCK,' ' HOMMOCK ' OR ' HUMMOCK ' ? 



Some recent botanical papers seem to indi- 

 cate that there is still some uncertainty as to 

 which of the above is the proper designation 

 for a certain class of geographical features of 

 frequent occurrence in some parts of the 

 southeastern United States. These three 

 words may represent three totally different 



and independent ideas, but tney are so similar 

 in spelling that one may be easily transformed 

 into another by a mere typographical error. 

 But typographical errors will not account for 

 all cases, and there are certain other circum- 

 stances which complicate the problem. Hav- 

 ing given the matter considerable study lately,, 

 both in field and library, I can present some 

 observations which should clear up most of 

 the existing confusion. 



The lexicographers all seem to favor '■ hum- 

 mock.' Webster, for instance, says : " Hum- 

 mock (probably an Indian word). (1) A 

 rounded knoll or hillock; * * * (2) A ridge 

 or pile of ice * * *. See Hommock. (3) Tim- 

 bered land. (Florida.)" Under 'hommock' 

 is the following definition : " Hommock (writ- 

 ten also hammock and hummock). (Probably 

 an Indian word.) A hillock, or small emi- 

 nence of a conical form, sometimes covered 

 with trees. Bartram." The definitions in 

 the Century and Standard dictionaries are 

 somewhat longer, but do not differ materially 

 from that of Webster, except that they say 

 that hummock is probably a diminutive of 

 hump. In all three, Bartram is the only 

 authority cited for ' hommock ' ; and this word 

 occurs on pages 31, 219-221, and perhaps else- 

 where in the 1794 edition of his ' Travels.'' 

 The same spelling is used throughout Dr. E. 

 ' W. Hilgard's ' Report on the Geology and 

 Agriculture of Mississippi,' published in 1860, 

 and in that work several varieties of ' hom- 

 raocks ' are fully described. Dr. Hilgrade in a 

 recent letter informs me that that spelling 

 was in accordance with the pronunciation 

 used by the natives, but that he now believes 

 ' hammock ' to be correct, and writes it that 

 way. 



The published references to ' hammock '" 

 and ' hummock ' are so numerous that it 

 would be impracticable to attempt to list 

 them ; but thus far I have noted the former in 

 at least thirty different books and papers, the 

 earliest dating back to 1839, and the latter in 

 about half as many, beginning with 1834. 

 Most of the occurrences of both forms are in 

 works dealing with Florida, and a carefnl 

 search through Florida literature would doubt- 

 less reveal many other cases of each. It is; 



