26 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIII. No. 836 



line of development than zoology has yet gone. 

 Such a simplification by the employment of 

 symbols has become thoroughly incorporated 

 into the substance of some sciences and is 

 proposed for introduction into others. An 

 examination of these conditions shows some 

 interesting and in my opinion valuable con- 

 siderations for this discussion. 



Probably because numbers were the basis of 

 mathematics the origin of the science is often 

 said to date from the invention of numbers. 

 But even with that it may be noted that the 

 symbols were not in all cases identical and in 

 one system Boman letters were employed, 

 whereas another used Arabic numerals for 

 the same general purpose. Nor can one well 

 doubt the superiority of the Arabic notation 

 over the Roman even if sentimental grounds 

 lead one to prefer the classical to the Moorish 

 civilization in laws, government or other so- 

 cial conditions. Probably mathematics rep- 

 resents the most highly developed of all sci- 

 ences and the modern mathematician is not 

 deterred from the use of symbols by any dan- 

 ger of misprinting, confusion, error of mem- 

 ory or other similar objection, real though 

 each of them is in this case also. 



The case of chemistry is even more en- 

 lightening because the introduction and uni- 

 versal use of symbols is of comparatively 

 recent date. One does not have to seek far to 

 find arguments against the use of symbols for 

 the designation of chemical elements which 

 read strikingly like the objections of Professor 

 Cockerell to the plan which Professor Need- 

 ham advocates. Errors do occur in chemical 

 literature, proofreading is far more difficult 

 because of the numerous easily confused sym- 

 bols in use to-day and the abandonment of 

 those quaint old names which disclose some 

 of the secrets of the alchemist and of the 

 mystic age of chemistry, was a real senti- 

 mental loss. Yet I doubt if any one could 

 now be found who would seriously contend 

 that we should return to the presymbolic days 

 even if it were possible to express modern 

 chemical work in ancient form. Simplifica- 

 tion through the use of sjTnbols has come to 

 stay in chemistry as in mathematics. 



It is no argument whatever against the 

 general proposal to introduce some such sys- 

 tem into biological sciences to say that the 

 latter are less precise, that their units are 

 more numerous and more complicated than 

 those of mathematics or chemistry. If the 

 problem had been as simple it would have 

 been solved as easily as were the others. The 

 delay in reaching any solution indicates the 

 existence of difficulties but does not afford any 

 basis for rejecting efforts to solve the problem 

 or for characterizing the problem as insoluble 

 along this line. The greater complications of 

 biology make its development slower because 

 they demand for their consideration and an- 

 alysis a more highly organized general scien- 

 tific foundation and a more highly trained 

 body of scientific workers. The solution may 

 not come in our time, but it will surely come 

 some day. 



But other sciences also are looking for pos- 

 sibilities of simplifying and of standardizing 

 their forms of expression in the manner so 

 successfully adopted by chemistry. One ex- 

 ample of most recent date may suffice to show 

 the tendency. This is taken from what may 

 be regarded as the most recent addition to the 

 circle of sciences, geography. In an address 

 before the Geographical Section of the British 

 Association at Sheffield this year, the brilliant 

 young Oxford geographer, A. J. Herbertson,' 

 dwells upon this matter, saying in introduc- 

 tion, " I have long thought that we shall be 

 driven to some notation analogous to that of 

 the chemists." After suggesting a possible 

 scheme for consideration he adds : " This is 

 the roughest suggestion, but it shows how we 

 could. . . . No doubt there would be many 

 discussions. . . . But after all these discus- 

 sions would be more profitable than quarrels 

 as to which descriptive term, or place name 

 or local usage should be adopted to distin- 

 guish it." 



With only minor changes in phraseology 

 this description of dangers and profitless dis- 

 cussions which geography should avoid por- 

 trays actual conditions in the zoological field. 



'Science, November 25, 1910, p. 745. 



