214 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XX. No. 506 



the birth of Christ, as the beginning of the era — the one now in 

 common use by all Christian nations. 



For ecclesiastical purposes the early Christians adopted in part, 

 at least, the Jewish calendar, especially for the feast of Easter, 

 the counterpart of the Jewish passover — the 14th of Abib, the 

 first month of the year. " In the fourteenth day of the first 

 month at even is the Lord's passover." — Leviticus xxui., 5. But 

 the fourteenth day did not generally fall on the Sabbath. Some 

 churches celebrated Easter on the fourteenth, and some on the 

 following Sunday. This caused some contention, and easily grew 

 into a matter of supreme importance for the church. In the year 

 325 of our era, the council which convened at the city of Nicsea, 

 beyond Constantinople, decided that the feast of Easter should be 

 celebrated on Sunday, and that it should be the Sunday following 

 the day of the full moon, which should occur on, or next after, 

 the 31st of March. The intention was to fix the time of Easter 

 as nearly as a movable feast could be fixed. The Jewish year 

 was luni-solar — twelve months for one year, thirteen for the 

 next. 



Early in the fifteenth century the ecclesiastics noticed that the 

 equinox wis slipping away from the 21st of March. The ques- 

 tion was di.scussed more or less for nearly two hundred years 

 before final action was taken. In 1583 the equinox occurred on 

 the nth of March instead of the 21st, as at the time of the Coun- 

 cil of Nicsea, in 325. Pope Gregory XIII. , with the aid of able 

 coadjutors, reformed the Julian calendar. His object was to 

 prevent in the future such diversity of days in celebrating the 

 same feast. The change made by Gregory consisted chiefly of 

 two points: 1, The skipping of ten days in order to bring the 

 equinox back to the 31st of March ; and 2, To arrange an order of 

 leap years which should prevent a like divergence thereafter. 

 The omitted days were the ten following the 4th of October, 

 1583. The day which in the ordinary course of events would 

 have been the 5th was reckoned as the 15th of October, new style. 

 The Julian calendar, with every fourth year a leap year, is old 

 style. Gregory excepted the cente-^iimal years, decreeing that 

 only those which are divisible by 400 should be called leap years. 

 The year 1600 being divisible by 4 and by 400 was a leap year in 

 both styles. Wherefore the difference between the two styles 

 continued ten days for a century after 1600, viz., till midnight 

 of the 28th of February, 1700. In new style, 1700, not being di- 

 visible by 400, was a common yeai% and the day following the 

 28th of February was March 1. But in countries which still 

 adhered to the old style, 1700, being divisible by 4, was a leap 

 year; so the day following the 28th of February was the 29th. 

 Here there began a difference of eleven days between the styles. 

 A like case occurred on the 28th of February in 1800, and the 

 difference became twelve days, and will so continue tOl February 

 38, 1900; after which for 300 years the difference will be thir- 

 teen days. Russia still adheres to the Julian calendar, and the 

 12th of October, 1893, in that country wiU be the 34th in this. 



The change of style by Gregory looked solely to the future, in 

 order to prevent unseemly changes in the time or date of church 

 festivals. It did not disturb the past at all, and was not intended 

 to do so. As a proof of this, it may be stated that no date 

 previous to October 4, 1582, old style, was ever changed by 

 Gregory or any of his successors, or by any body of learned men, 

 or of unlearned men ; that no writer of history or of chronology 

 in any European nation has changed or attempted to change such 

 dates from old to new style. The discovery of America was on 

 Friday, October 12, 1492, old style. It is so written "always 

 and everywhere and by all." 



It was reserved for the American Congress of 1892, instigated 

 by a committee of some ill-informed society, to depart from es- 

 tablished and uniform custom, and to declare that the 31st of 

 October, 1892, should be celebrated as the 400th anniversary of the 

 discovery. It is a " consummation devoutly to be wished " that 

 this hasty and ill-advised action of Congress may die a speedy 

 death, and that after this year it may never again be thought of 

 or regarded in any way. 



The present Pope, in his announcement concerning " Columbus 

 Day," utterly ignores this act of Congress. He says, according 

 to current reports in the daily prpss, that on the twelfth of Octo- 



ber or on the following Sunday (the 16th) appropriate services 

 will be had in commemoration of the great discovery. It is to 

 hoped that some friend will call his attention to the unadulterated 

 wisdom displayed on this side of the Atlantic, regardless of the 

 " effete monarchies " of Europe. 



England adhered to the Julian calendar till about the first of 

 September, 1753. To be specific, the order of Parliament was 

 that the day following the second of September of that year 

 should be called the fourteenth, and that the year which pre- 

 viously began on March 25 should begin on January 1, 1753, to 

 conform to the Gregorian calendar. Macaulay, Hume, Robert- 

 son, and all other historians who have written in the English 

 language of events in English history, give the dates in old style 

 up to the year 1752. 



In the colonies on this continent, planted by the French, Dutch, 

 Spanish, and English, each followed the custom of the mother 

 country, some using old and some new style. After the Revolu- 

 tionary War Ramsay's Life of Washington was written. In it 

 Washington's birth is given in old style only, viz., February 11, 

 1731, — conforming to the English custom of leaving unchanged 

 all dates before the change of style. But ''necessity knows no 

 law ; " so the conflicting dates of the various colonies were assimi- 

 lated by all being made new style, for events occurring on this 

 continent. 



Such is a brief account of some points in chronology, which 

 account may be of interest to many and may stir up some to a 

 more careful studj' of a much neglected subject. 



Oxford, Ohio, September, 1892. 



SOME THOUGHTS ON THE PHYLOGENY OF THE MOLE 

 CRICKET. 



BY E. W. DORAN, PH.D., COLLEGE PARK, MD. 



I HAVE recently been able to work out to some extent the life- 

 history of the Northern Mole Cricket, Oryllotalpa borealis. The 

 various stages of the insect seem not to have been studied exten- 

 sively, or described, before. I have made some observations of 

 interest which I have not seen recorded elsewhere, and which 

 seem to indicate the course of development in this species. I am 

 led to believe that formerly the insect lived upon the surface of 

 the ground, or in natural hiding places, very much like our com- 

 mon field cricket, instead of burrowing into the earth, and pass- 

 ing all its existence under ground. 



My first reason for supposing a change of habit has taken place 

 is based upon the fact that the larva, before the first moult, is 

 able to jump like the field and house-cricket. (Larvae but little 

 over a fourth of an inch long w.ere seen to jump five or six inches 

 in the breeding- jars.) They are otherwise very active and brisk 

 in their movements. After this stage the insect cannot jump at 

 all, and is very clumsy. It can run rather rapidly backward or 

 forward in its burrow, or upon a level surface, but has very awk- 

 ward movements upon an uneven surface. The abdomen is long 

 and heavy, especially in the pupa and imago. 



Now this would indicate that originally the mole cricket had 

 the power of jumping like most other orthoptera, and all other 

 Gryllidce, I think, and lived upon the surface of the ground, per- 

 haps hiding in crevices, or under rubbish, like the common 

 cricket. But having taken to the burrowing habit, and no longer 

 finding the necessity for exercising its power of leaping, it 

 gradually lost that power, until it appears only in the early part 

 of the larval stage. 



My second reason for this conclusion is based upon the habit 

 the mole cricket has of defending itself in the burrow by ejecting 

 posterioi'ly a creamy, viscid substance in large quantities, which 

 rapidly thickens after exposure to the atmosphere. This fluid 

 seems also to have peculiar chemical properties. In this way it 

 is able to protect itself from almost any foe which may attack it 

 from behind, and it tights viciously if attacked in front. Now, 

 the larva before the first moult does not have the power of eject- 

 ing this substance, and this would possibly indicate that in a 

 previous stage of its development the mature insect was not so 

 armed, for the young larva certainly needs protection as much as 



