May 25, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



819 



Mounds of the Lower Mississippi Valley and 

 Texas,' in Science, Vol. XXIII., pp. 583-4, 

 leads me to say a few words on the subject. 

 Mr. Farnsworth cites Mr. A. C. Veatch's arti- 

 cle published in this paper. Vol. XXIII., p. 35, 

 and goes on to state that the numerous mounds 

 existing through the region above mentioned 

 were formed by the upturning of trees. I 

 will not question his authority in making the 

 assertion, not having ever lived in the local- 

 ities he cites ; all I wish to give are a few facts 

 concerning the ' Indian mounds ' which I have 

 met with in Kendall Co., Texas. 



Within a radius of five miles of my old 

 home there, I know of four mounds. They 

 are all of the same shape — elliptical, and meas- 

 ure from twenty to forty feet long by ten to 

 twenty wide by two to three high. They are 

 about twice as long as they are wide, and 

 level on top. Two of them are located on 

 high, hilly ground, and the other two in val- 

 leys. They form no group, but are scattered 

 widely over the country. They are made 

 largely of stones about the size of a man's 

 fist, which appear to have been in contact once 

 with fire, and from the small percentage of 

 earth they contain compared with the sur- 

 rounding ground, they give one an impression 

 that they were formed by the piling up of 

 these rocks. Arrow-heads are common around 

 them, for which the people in the locality 

 attribute their existence to the Indians, and 

 hold that they were used as places of sacrifices, 

 or torture, or cremation. 



I will refrain from expressing any opinion 

 as to their probable origin, leaving that to 

 wiser heads than mine, for only the interest I 

 take in the subject induces me to contribute 

 the above. 



Irving H. Wentwoeth. 



Matehuala, S. L. p., Mexico. 



megaspore or macrospore. 

 It is often asked why some botanists use 

 the term megaspore while others caU the same 

 object a macrospore. Since those who say 

 macrospore are likely to say macrosporocarp, 

 macrosporophyll, etc., instead of megasporo- 

 carp, etc., it is worth while to call attention 

 to the comparative merits of mega and macro. 



Mega, from the Greek iiiya^, means big, great, 

 large; it is equivalent to the Latin magnum 

 and is the opposite of micro. Macro, from 

 the Greek fiaxpoq, means long; it is not the 

 opposite of micro, as was doubtless imagined 

 by those who first used the term, macrospore,, 

 but is the opposite of (ipa-^ui;, meaning short. 

 No one would designate the larger spores of 

 heterosporous plants as long spores. Why 

 then should any one say the same thing in 

 Greek? The misconception of the meaning- 

 of macro — a misconception which could never- 

 occur to a student of Greek — has become so- 

 established that we even have a genus, Macro- 

 zamia. The taxonomist doubtless thought he 

 was constructing a word which should mean 

 large Zamia, but the word means long Zamia^ 

 while the plant itself is of the short tuberous 

 type. I should not suggest a change to- 

 Megazamia, although much more radical 

 changes in generic names are made with far 

 less provocation. Botanists dropped the term,, 

 rhizocarp, because it implied that the sporo- 

 carps were borne upon roots, an entirely in- 

 accurate implication. The term, macro, ex- 

 cept where it refers to length, is just as inac- 

 curate. Let us say megaspore, megasporo- 

 phyll, megasporocarp, megaphyllous, and, in 

 short use mega wherever the idea is that of" 

 great size rather than great length. 



Charles J. Chamberlain. 



SPECIAL ARTICLES. 



DESrOSAURIAN GASTROLITHS. 



The occurrence of worn and polished' 

 quartz pebbles in such close association with 

 plesiosaur skeletons of the Kansas chalk as 

 to suggest that in life these reptiles were- 

 pebble swallowers was first noted by Pro- 

 fessor Mudge and later by Williston.^ More 

 recently these observations of Mudge and' 

 Williston have been confirmed in the most 

 conclusive manner by Mr. Barnum Brown,^' 

 who found siliceous pebbles almost invariably 

 accompanying the plesiosaur skeletons, which- 



' Field Columbian Museum Publication (Chi- 

 cago), No. 73, p. 75. 



» Science, N. S., Vol. XIX., No. 501, pp. 184,. 

 185, August 5, 1904. 



