386 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIII. No. 1107 



work of these masters or not was not at all the 

 question. The fact remains that in the preface 

 in which Vogl, Collin and others are referred 

 to as the "great masters" and their treatises 

 referred to as sources used in the compilation 

 of Professor Kraemer's new book, the names 

 of Flueckiger and Hanbury and that of 

 Tschirch are conspicuous by their absence. 

 That Professor Kraemer might have had a 

 particular motive in omitting these names I 

 had no thought of suggesting. That I merely 

 referred to their absence as a " curious omis- 

 sion " ought to free me from the suspicion of 

 any intended imkindness. As reviewer I 

 could scarcely have said less. That later in the 

 text two special references occur to Tschirch's 

 " Handbuch " and that other references can 

 be found to journal articles by Tschirch and 

 his students does not alter in any way the 

 failure to give credit to Flueckiger and Han- 

 bury and to Tschirch as general sources of in- 

 formation, among which even the English 

 translation by the writer of Gildemeister and 

 Hoffmann's treatise " The Volatile Oils," and 

 other special treatises are enumerated. 



The writer had no intention to intimate that 

 Professor Kraemer was ignorant of the master 

 pharmaeognocists referred to, for such inti- 

 mation would appear ridiculous to all who 

 know how well posted Professor Kraemer is. 

 ISTeither was it the writer's intention to inti- 

 mate that the omission was intentional, for all 

 who know Professor Kraemer also know that 

 he could impossibly be guilty of anything that 

 had but a mere suspicion of dishonor. If 

 reference was had to the omission at all it was, 

 no doubt, because it seemed well nigh impos- 

 sible even to an amateur, much less to one so 

 well informed and careful as Professor 

 Kraemer. That it did occur merely shows 

 that even the best of us will make slips of 

 omission, if not of commission, with our edi- 

 torial pens. 



That the writer should have offended a col- 

 league of whom he has always thought highly 

 he regrets very much. The real reason for 

 sending you this communication is not that 

 I desire to jtistify my statement, but that it 

 gives me the opportimity to correct any im- 



favorable impression which my statement may 

 have made upon the minds of those who have 

 thought my review worth reading. 



Professor Kraemer also objects to my rela- 

 tion in paragraphs two and three and adds 



I am at a loss to know to what you refer as ap- 

 parently you have not understood my position from 

 the beginning. 



Under the circumstances I greatly regret 

 that I ventured to write the review as re- 

 quested. One thing I am certain of, namely 

 this, that I had no intention to hurt Professor 

 Kraemer's feelings any more than to misrepre- 

 sent him. If I were not absolutely positive of 

 this I should more than willingly apologize to 

 my Philadelphia colleague. 



Trusting that for Professor Kraemer's sake 

 you will kindly supplement my review with 

 this letter. 



Edward Kremers 



frogs catching butterflies 



I HAVE seen common green bullfrogs, Bana 

 catesbiana, catch and eat butterflies — the large, 

 yellow and black, swallow-tailed Papilio iurmis. 



On our summer place in southern New 

 Hampshire there was a brook where the horses 

 were watered. In this pool there were many 

 bullfrogs, and they were not very wild. Passing 

 the watering place one bright, hot day in Au- 

 gust, I saw a bevy of perhaps a dozen butter- 

 flies fluttering low over the bare, moist ground 

 near the stream. They flew in an aimless and 

 weak fashion not characteristic of this species, 

 and occasionally settled upon the ground, 

 about three feet from the water's edge. 



Out of the water crept four big green bull- 

 frogs. They went after the butterflies in the 

 stealthy manner of a cat stalking a mouse. 

 They did not hop or jump, but walked, or 

 crawled, on all fours, flat on the ground — 

 sometimes advancing rapidly, sometimes stop- 

 ping short with one leg stretched out far be- 

 hind. Their bodies were strained and quiver- 

 ing, and their interest in the pursuit did not 

 lag for an instant. 



When a frog was within a foot of a butter- 

 fly it jumped upon it and caught it in its 

 mouth. They ate the butterflies very quickly. 



