402 



SCIENCE. 



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



mock,' if that is a diminutive of hump, as 

 seems most likely. Whether there is any con- 

 nection between our hammock and ' hammock ' 

 in the ordinary sense (German Hangematte) 

 perhaps some philologist can tell us. If * hom- 

 mock' could be universally adopted by the 

 natives of the southeastern coastal plain, then 

 ' hammock ' could be restricted to the familiar 

 manufactured article and ' hummock ' to a 

 heap of ice or something of that sort ; but this 

 is obviously out of the question at present. 



Before dismissing the subject I should like 

 to suggest to those botanists who believe in 

 giving names of classical derivation to every 

 kind of plant-habitat, that they find a Latin 

 or Greek equivalent for the word under dis- 

 cussion, and thus do away with all this un- 

 certainty at one stroke, at least as far as bot- 

 anists are concerned. 



EoLAND M. Harper. 



College Point, New Yoek, 

 June, 1905. 



INDIAN BONE COMBS. 



To THE Editor of Science: Some of your 

 readers may receive the valuable archeological 

 reports of David Boyle, of Toronto, annually 

 made to the minister of education, Ontario. 

 Mr. Boyle fully believes that the bone combs 

 found on Indian sites in Canada and New 

 York are a purely aboriginal idea, while I as 

 firmly hold that this idea came from Euro- 

 peans. Such differences are common and nat- 

 ural, but the report for 1904 mistakes my 

 position saying: 



The contention of Dr. Beauchamp is simply this, 

 that without metallic tools it was impossible to 

 make a comb, and the inference is that before the 

 appearance of Europeans, the Indians had no use 

 for any article of this kind. 



The latter statement is correct, the former 

 an error of my valued friend. If I have made 

 such a statement I gladly retract it. I cer- 

 tainly do not believe this impossible in a gen- 

 eral way, but metallic tools were used in most 

 cases. 



I have figures of forty-five of these combs 

 from Iroquois sites in New York and they are 

 found there on no others as yet. Ten of these 

 are from Mohawk sites, found with glass and 



brass ornaments, and there are others there. 

 Eour are from Cayuga sites of similar char- 

 acter. Onondaga sites have furnished seven, 

 of which two are as early as 1600. Seneca 

 sites have furnished twenty, mostly made 

 about 1687, with two more which are in a 

 sense prehistoric. Some recent ones have not 

 been figured. Erom Oneida sites I remember 

 none, though they should occur there. Two 

 others were from Jefferson County, where 

 they are certainly rare. One of these may be 

 classed as early and the other recent. Some 

 brass beads found on sites there now place 

 these in the sixteenth century, as had been 

 surmised. Of those enumerated forty were 

 found with European articles, and five may be 

 dated anywhere from 1550 to 1600. The 

 earlier and ruder ones were made with stone 

 tools; the more elaborate with metallic im- 

 plements. The soundness of my position will 

 thus be seen. All known New York combs of 

 this character seem to have been made be- 

 tween 1550 and 1700, and may be ascribed to 

 European contact. A few were made with 

 stone tools, soon replaced with those of metal, 

 and I certainly do not think it was impossible 

 to have made the ruder forms without the 

 later tools. Why the Indians did not think 

 of these combs before we can not tell. It is 

 evident they did not till after European con- 

 tact. 



Some of the lat^r combs are fine in design, 

 and Mr. Boyle has given some figures of 

 Egyptian bone combs, furnished by Wm. 

 Elinders Petrie, and there are curious resem- 

 blances to those found in New York and 

 Canada, so many centuries later. One great 

 value of Mr. Boyle's reports to those laboring 

 in New York is in the close relations of the 

 fields, so well shown in his long and accurate 

 work. 



W. M. Beauchamp. 



Syracuse, N. Y., 

 August 11, 1905. 



SPECIAL ARTICLES. 



THE SYSTEMATIC NAME OF THE JAPANESE DEER. 



That an author himself has no more right 

 to change a systematic name once given by 

 him than any other person is a principle now 



