748 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVII. No. 697 



individuals, and that the weight attributable 

 to the differences shown is discussed elsewhere, 

 viz., pp. 516-519. The " Hauptgewieht," it 

 will then be seen, is placed in my table of 

 comparative measurements on page 516, and 

 even in this case with considerable diffidence, 

 as shown by the following qualification: 

 "Although the series is small, the figures prob- 

 ably deserve some confidence, because of their 

 remarkable uniformity and harmony.'' 



As said above, my material was scant and 

 my conclusions, therefore, preliminary and 

 inconclusive. I have received no authentic 

 material since and I am at present as unde- 

 cided about the real status of these forms as 

 I was when I wrote my book. Unfortunately, 

 Siebenrock's treatment has not helped much 

 to clear the matter up. True, he is very posi- 

 tive that there is only one species and not 

 even another subspecies (" Selbstandige Unter- 

 arten," p. 1742, whatever that may mean), 

 and with the great respect I have for him as 

 an authority on the Testudinata and my own 

 inferiority in this field, I would gladly have 

 accepted his dictum, were it not that appar- 

 ently his and my views as to what constitutes 

 " species and subspecies " are so radically at 

 variance that a discussion would be fruitless.' 



That Siebenrock completely fails to under- 

 stand my point of view is plainly shown in 

 the last two paragraphs of his article in which 

 he contrasts A. sinensis with A. cartilaginea 

 and A. steindachneri by the young of the 

 former having symmetrical black marks on 



" This is pretty well illustrated by the way in 

 which he takes me to task for not reoognizing 

 Geoclemys reevesii unicolor {I. c, p. 1760), as a 

 Bubspecies (" Unterart "), claiming that I regard 

 the " more or less uniform black specimens " as 

 " individuelle Aberrationen." I have not com- 

 mitted myself on that point. To me these speci- 

 mens represent either a color phase of a dichro- 

 matic species, or they are simply more or less 

 melanistic individuals, but 1 do not know which, 

 and for my purpose it matters little whichever 

 they are. It is admitted that these specimens are 

 found wherever the typically colored (?. reevesii 

 is found, and color varieties not geographically 

 separated I do not recognize nomenclatorially. 

 At any rate, they are not subspecies in the modern 

 and commonly accepted meaning of the word. 



the plastron which are lacking in the latter, 

 concluding that inasmuch as there are sym- 

 metrical black marks in all of my " four 

 species " (" die vier Arten im Sinne Stej- 

 neger's ") these can only be individuals of 

 the same original form ("nur Individuen der 

 selben Stammform sein konnen ") . As if I 

 ever had denied that the " forms " I prelim- 

 inarily recognized by name belong to the same 

 " Stammform " ! Of course they do. The 

 question is only, has this " Stammform " in 

 its various geographical areas split up into 

 " separable forms," and this I claim Dr. Sie- 

 benrock has failed to disprove. I have shown 

 clearly that the black plastral pattern in the 

 Japanese specimens differs essentially from, 

 that described by Dr. Siebenrock himself in 

 Annamese specimens, and yet he maintains 

 that these juvenile markings prove ("be- 

 weist") the identity of these forms. 



That I have used a binominal designation 

 for these, in my opinion, " separable forms " 

 does not mean that I regard them as " selb- 

 standige " species. Were I to employ for 

 them trinominals I would thereby have indi- 

 cated that I knew them to intergrade, but 

 that I did not and do not yet know. Maybe 

 they do. Maybe only 75 per cent, of the 

 specimens from each geographical area can be 

 told apart. But if 75 per cent, of the Jap- 

 anese specimens can be shown to be different 

 from 75 per cent, of the Chinese specimens I 

 shall be satisfied for my zoogeographical pur- 

 poses to regard them as " separable forms " 

 and to recognize them nomenclatorially. 

 Whether that be binominally or trinominally 

 is at present immaterial. 



Leonhard Stejneger 



U. S. National Museum, 

 Washington, D. C, 

 April 2, 1908 



AN OLD STORY 



We are still struggling with variations of 

 the old discussion with which some of our 

 teachers tormented our boyhood days. Did 

 Niagara Falls roar before the country near it 

 was inhabited ? We stiU hear it asserted that 

 space would not exist if we were so situated 

 that we were ignorant of its properties. Space 



