Januabt 6, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



29 



method of designation in a system of symbols 

 such as other sciences have found? I am not 

 in sympathy with those who look for relief in 

 a laser more open administration of the pres- 

 ent system. Such a line of action does not 

 seem to me likely to prove either effective or 

 legitimate. 



This rigor in systematic nomenclature is a 

 natural reaction from the free and easy 

 methods which have prevailed in the past. 

 Biological science even to-day publishes loose, 

 inaccurate statements in research contribu- 

 tions which would be laughed out of court in 

 physics or chemistry, to say nothing of 

 mathematics or astronomy. It is necessary 

 that some reform be undertaken, that our 

 branch of science approach more closely to 

 the precision in observation and experiment, 

 in record and discussion that characterizes 

 older sciences. The natural lack of fixity in 

 biological phenomena has been utilized to ex- 

 cuse a lack of precision in method and in- 

 vestigation which must be corrected. One 

 effort to reach a more justifiable basis is seen 

 in the recent development of statistical work, 

 and in the publication of definite numerical 

 results rather than merely generalizations in 

 connection with experimental work, in the 

 effort to control more accurately and state 

 more precisely the conditions of such experi- 

 mentation and to analyze more closely the re- 

 sults obtained. In such lines zoology has 

 achieved wonderful progress in the last 

 twenty years or even less. 



The same influences will lead to a reform 

 of our system and, following the lead of other 

 sciences, such a reform is likely to be accom- 

 panied by the simplification which is associ- 

 ated with the utilization of symbols. The far- 

 seeing biologist should be on the watch for a 

 plan which promises some measure of success 

 in this line, he should welcome all reasonable 

 attempts at the solution of the problem. Of 

 course he will not reject any and all systems 

 because they are new departures; and yet he 

 should not fail to subject each to careful con- 

 sideration because it may seem to be inade- 

 quate or only partially worked out. Out of 

 such careful discussion will come the longed- 



for result in a workable form. But the sys- 

 tem itseK will represent contributions from 

 many sources. 



I confess that Professor Needham's plan 

 seems to me at most only a partial solution 

 of the problem. Even as such it may prove to 

 be of great value and it is to be hoped that 

 biological workers may be willing to try it on 

 various groups in diverse portions of the field 

 and may then report on their results. Better 

 still if it could be subjected to a trial by some 

 recognized society or institution with a view 

 to testing thoroughly its character. It would 

 be valuable to compare it carefully with the 

 much more complex system proposed some 

 years ago by Tornier* which seems to have 

 attracted no attention, although it was a most 

 ingenious and original means of formulating 

 a symbolism for zoological nomenclature. 

 While this system was much more complex 

 and covered not only species as proposed by 

 Professor Needham's plan, but also genera, and 

 indicated the precise place in class, order and 

 family occupied by each genus and species, 

 yet apparently the symbol used for a given 

 form would not be permanent and independent 

 of changing views regarding the position and 

 relationship of genera and higher groups. 

 This lack of stability would be a serious, if 

 not fatal, objection to the introduction of a 

 new system planned to correct precisely the 

 same defect in the old. 



Henry B. Wahd 



Zoological Laboeatobt, 

 Univeesitt of Illinois 



^botanical evidence of coastal subsidence 



In a recent article' Professor D. W. John- 

 son calls attention to certain conditions at 

 Scituate, Mass., which are there responsible 

 for a fictitious appearance of coastal subsi- 

 dence. During the " Portland Storm " of 

 1898 the bar was broken which at that locality 

 almost separates the North River marshes and 

 bay from the ocean, with the result that the 

 high tide level on the marshes is now from 

 one to several feet higher than it was then. 

 <'Zool. Ans., Vol. 21, p. 575, October 24, 1898. 

 1 Science, N. S., XXXII., 1910, p. 721. 



