October 28, 189 ?.J 



SCIENCE. 



247 



of confusion, which should be eliminated as soon as possible, 

 either by the actual description of the species, cr by the rejection 

 of these manuscript names. The mischievous practice of attach- 

 ing names to insects without describing them has long been 

 abandoned by lepidopterists in erery branch of the study except 

 sericiculture. W. F. Kirby. 



London, Eogland, Sept. 25. 



stares the old system in the face — and let us hope that time is 

 far distant — then we can almost picture our laboring scientists, 

 with the new .system (?) dictionary before them, ever fearful of 

 beginning one word with an F after the new, and the next with a 

 Pb after the system they have so successfully used for genera- 

 tions. E. 



Destroying Mosquitoes by Kerosene. 



The reason for the existence of mosquitoes has often been asked. 

 S»me means for their destruction has, perhaps, been even more ear- 

 nestly sought after. The idea that their numbers can be kept down 

 by propagating dragon-flies does not seem to be any longer enter- 

 tained ; and any experiment bearing on some means for their de- 

 struction is of interest. In a late number of Insect Life, Mr. L. 

 O. Howard publishes a note upon the use of kerosene against 

 them, the substance of which is as follows: On the surface of a 

 pool of water, containing about 60 square feet, he poured four 

 ounces of kerosene. This formed a very thin oily film on the sur- 

 face of the water. On the 5th of July the pool was teeming with 

 animal life, but for the next ten days that the pool was under 

 observation no living insects were observed. At the end of this 

 time, a count of the insects on a small portion of the surface, 

 from which was estimated the total number, showed 7,400, — 370 of 

 which were mosquitoes. The observation is of interest as show- 

 ing the remedy to be an effective one, and. further, that a single 

 application of oil will remain operative for ten days or longer, 

 although two rain storms occurred during the interval. The 

 matter is worthy of further observation and expeiiment. 



Joseph F. James. 



WasWngtOD, D.C., Oct. 10. 



Phonetics in Science 



Following almost in the "wake" of the geological word- 

 makers, who have apparently a dictionary of their own construc- 

 tion, comes another scientific writer who has decided to use the 

 phonetic system of orthography. My attention was called to an 

 article in a chemical journal published in this country, and almost 

 at a glance I should have decided, had I not known the system, 

 that the author had just finished writing a translation from the 

 Spanish, and had his alphabet somewhat confused ; for here before 

 me was sulfate; but reading further, I should have said, perhaps, 

 that he had just finished a German translation. 



All this would have occurred to me if I had been ignorant of the 

 existence of the phonetic system. Now, why did not this author 

 change phenol-phtalein, which appears in the article referred to? 

 Perhaps this word does not occur in the phonetic dictionary. 



Is it not high time for American scientists to stop "coining" 

 words? To be sure, these words differ from the geological ones 

 in that they come well recommended by some philologists, and 

 then the author in this case has not been guilty of owning an 

 " orthographic mint." Why not continue to use the good old 

 spelling, when it answers every requirement ? The only disadvan- 

 tage (?) in so doing, to my mind, may be in the fact that the words 

 are longer than those in the phonetic system, and, as the advo- 

 cates of this system claim, are more difficult to spell; so they are 

 to some people, but unless they are foreigners, one is not in the 

 habit of meeting such scientists in every-day life. Scarcely has 

 our American language secured a strong foot-hold than it must be 

 changed for the benefit of a few who would receive the honors as 

 the originators and champions of a new system of orthography. 

 I know of one advocate (not the author, it is needless to say, of 

 the paper in the chemical journal above referred to) who " prides 

 himself not only upon his ability to use the phonetic system, but 

 also upon his beautiful English." Yet this very same man habit- 

 ually uses, for example, such phrases as "Ain't he funny?" Still 

 this hardly belongs to my criticism of phonetics in science. Why 

 not leave the phonetic system to the philologists; why incorporate 

 it in our scientific work? 



When the advocates of this system have succeeded in establish- 

 ing a strong foot hold for their system, and permanency (for it) 



Grand-Gulf Formation. 



Dr. Wm. H. Dall"s contribution to Miocene literature under 

 this head calls for some notice, were it only to thank that eminent 

 palaeontologist for correcting my mistake with regard to thfr 

 Gnathodon of Pascagoula and Mobile. With his unrivalled oppor- 

 tunities of comparison and long experience in these studies, his 

 determination is naturally satisfactory and final. I knew that in 

 moUusks the young and the adult forms often differ considerably ; 

 but I knew not the life history of this one. 



It is complimentary to me also that he has accepted my outline 

 of the evolution of the Florida Peninsula,' although he probably 

 arrived at his conclusions from different and independent sourcts. 

 And I wish to correct the impression he seems to have of my 

 notions of the genesis of the Grand Gulf. I do not say that the 

 Pascagoula is a deep-sea formation, but speak of it as a " marine 

 aspect" of the more intensely fresh-water Grand Gulf on the 

 Mississippi; and I do not suppose that in an estuary marine in- 

 fluences prevail over the fluviatile, in order to foster the life of 

 any of the creatures that have left their remains in these calcareous 

 clays and sands; so that it may be said to be " partially of murine 

 genesis." The same views here expressed by Dr. Dall were indi- 

 cated by myself in another paper published by the Geological 

 Survey of Alabama on the " Nita Crevasse" in 1889, in which I 

 speak of the progress of later formations on and in the Mississippi 

 Sound and its older extension as presenting a " marine-aspect" of 

 the "Port-Hudson group" of Dr. Hilgard, and sutHciently differ- 

 ent to be called the Biloxi Formation — a nomenclature I under- 

 stood to have been approved by him among others. The method 

 of genesis sketched in that paper for the Port Hudson was con- 

 sidered applicable to the older Post- Eocene formations of the samfr 

 embayment. 



1 do not perceive, therefore, that Dr. Dall's "correction of my 

 definition of these clays" was "required;" nor have I any to 

 make of his, for similar views have been elaborated for the forth- 

 coming Alabama Geological Report, which will be in effect a new 

 edition of Bulletin 37 of the United States Geological Survey. 



The only criticism here to which Dr. Dall might seem amenable 

 is a tacit endorsement of his own brochure of January last upon 

 these same Miocene formations, in which it may be said he has 

 permitted conjecture upon general principles somewhat to outrun 

 and forestall positive discovery. Hasty generalization is the bane^ 

 of science. The Pascagoula Clays may be equivalent to his Chesa- 

 peake, but the testimony as yet can scarcely be said to be satis- 

 factory. Whilst he has shown the younger Miocene of northern 

 Florida, originally named by me the Waldo Formation, phases of 

 which are seen at White Springs, in Hamilton County, and in the 

 overlying clays at Aspalaga on the Apalachicola River, to be 

 Chesapeake; this surely cannot be identical with the upper layers 

 at Alum Blufi", much less with the lower." As he himself has 

 shown, the latter is an older Miocene, identical with that occurring 

 on Chipola at Bailey's Bridge, and called by m,>self Chipoh at a 

 time when, from high water, I had not seen the Ortholax beds at 

 Alum Bluff, and when I had not seen the perfect instance of con- 

 tact and overlap presented at that place. At that time, I had 

 previously discovered a Miocene in the vicinity of Def uniak Springs, 

 on Shoal River, and on Alaqua River (and named it from the last), 

 tracing it across Choctawhatchie. near Knox Hill, and across 

 Washington County a little south of Vernon, and across Chipola 

 at Abe Springs, eight miles south of Ten-Mile Bayou, the principal 

 site of the older Miocene. With the help of Mr. Jtissen (both of 

 us then working with Mr. Geo. H. Eldridge on the geological 



^ See Dr. J. W. Spencer's First Report of the GeolDgical Survey of Georgia, 

 p. 60; and bhort papers of my own, read eeverally at the meetings of the Geo- 

 logical Society of America, .\ugust, 1891, and Augu;t, 1S93. 



2 There is no foislUferous formation at Hawthorne, nor any at Ocheeaee, as- 

 Dr. Dall seems to suppose. 



