374 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIII. No. 845 



theless, a little tliought certainly shows that 

 some such system as this may be a necessity 

 in the near future and, if for no other reason, 

 should receive earnest attention and discus- 

 sion. The system proposed by Dr. Needham 

 has obvious advantages : By grouping closely 

 related genera (becoming subgenera) under 

 the old name of the genus vsfhen used in its 

 widest sense, two of the fundamental reasons 

 for the existence of nomenclature are reached, 

 namely, stability and ease in identification 

 and in grasping the relations of the various 

 units at a glance. But, to my mind, the sys- 

 tem has nothing at all to do with stability 

 unless this fundamental change is instituted. 

 All will grant, I think, that stability is funda- 

 mental, as is also ease or at least possibility of 

 identification. I believe, too, that all will con- 

 cede that neither is possible without what may 

 be called "rigidly" defined genera (^groups), 

 genera which all are willing to rank as such 

 and which all wiU be able to recognize (per- 

 haps they would be equal to present-day sub- 

 families at least). 



These genera or groups being firmly estab- 

 lished by universal acceptance and concise 

 description, then the application of the sym- 

 bols would doubtless save an immense amount 

 of space. Otherwise, I am certainly at a loss 

 to find any other advantages which they may 

 have. Synonymy nor anything else is simpli- 

 fied by saying that 5 = 4 instead of leucop- 

 salUs^=viridis. The only thing that matters 

 is whether the statement is true or not. You 

 may call 5 anything that you wish without 

 changing what it represents. And is it not 

 true that most of our troubles cluster about 

 the fact that we have been unable to find out 

 what authors have meant to represent? 



The objections to involved nomenclature 

 entered by the zoologist and biologist are 

 entitled to much consideration, but we should 

 not lose sight of the fact that the present 

 systematic unit — the species — ^was founded by 

 themselves and seemingly we still find an end- 

 less number of them. If it is true that they 

 exist it is our duty to keep on recording them. 

 Whether we call them by symbols or names 

 isn't to the point at all. The gist of the 



matter is, shall the conception of the system- 

 atic unit be changed from " natural " species 

 to conceived genera ? Will any biologist deny 

 that species exist. Why, therefore, should 

 they wish to escape from them? It is true it 

 is impossible to know all of them nor even 

 their names ! But who wants to do this. The 

 fact that they exist is true, or else our con- 

 ception, or rather perception, of a species is 

 all wrong. Now, if it is true that they exist, 

 I believe that it is necessary that they be rep- 

 resented by names or else symbols. Thus, 

 whether names or symbols are used, either 

 would have to be used an equal number of 

 times, but the symbols would be shorter, that 

 is all. It is not the jungle of names that 

 masters us, is it ? Rather, is it not the jungle 

 of things? To simplify, natural laws, not 

 symbols, are needed. 



Therefore, it seems to me that the funda- 

 mental plan suggested by Dr. Needham, that 

 of falling back upon the old genera and their 

 names, is the only way out of the confusion, 

 present and past. As for the symbols, they 

 are preferable only in so far as they have a 

 tendency to simplify, not our knowledge, 

 which they are certainly unable to do here, 

 but our working methods, time and space. 

 A. Aesene Gieault 



Ubbana, III., 

 January 9, 1911 



ON FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO A LOW SCIENTIFIO 

 PRODUCTIVITY IN AMERICA 



A FEW months ago I offered some criticisms 

 on a paper by Professor Gunn which appeared 

 in Science for October 28, 1910, under the 

 caption, " American Educational Defects." 

 My criticisms were directed chiefly to the 

 method adopted by Professor Gunn, and he 

 has very properly retorted' that I shoidd not 

 make too much of the matter of method unless 

 I am prepared to dissent from the practical 

 outcome of his study. 



Now so far as this outcome was to the effect 

 that the level of scientific and scholarly pro- 

 ductivity in this country is unsatisfactory by 

 comparison with that in certain European 



'Science, January 20, 1911, N. S., XXXIII., 

 107. 



