January 25, 1889.] 



SCIENCE. 



71 



and replaced by a newly formed one." Caton {The Antelope and 

 Deer of America, 2d ed., New York, 1881 [?]) gives a lengthy de- 

 scription of the shedding process as observed by him upon antelope 

 in captivity ; also quotes Audubon and Bachman {Quadrupeds 0/ 

 America) as saying, " It was supposed by the hunters of Fort 

 Union that the prong-horned antelope dropped its horns," — a sup- 

 position that these naturalists thought they had disproved by merely 

 showing that it had an osseous horn-core. E. R. Alston {Biologia 

 Cenirali-Americana, 1879-82, p. 112, article "Mammalia") says, 

 " Although the fact that the prong-buck sheds its horns annually 

 was long well known to hunters and backwoodsmen, and had been 

 noted by one or two writers, yet it was generally disbelieved or ig- 

 nored by zoologists ; and Mr. Bartlett, the observant superintend- 

 ent of the Zoological Society's Gardens, was the first to demon- 

 strate its truth and insist on its importance." Flower {Eticyclo- 

 pcsdia Britannica, 9th ed., p. 431, article "Mammalia") says, 

 " The only existing species [of the BovidcE\ in which such a pro- 

 cess [shedding] occurs regularly and periodically is the American 

 prong-buck {Antilocapra), in which the horns also differ from all 

 others in being bifurcated." 



This evidence resolves itself into three separate cases of direct 

 observation on animals in captivity, — the statement by Audubon 

 and Bachman of the belief of the hunters of Fort Union ; and the 

 indefinite statement of Mr. Alston, that " the fact that the prong- 

 buck sheds its horns annually was long well known to hunters and 

 backwoodsmen." 



My own observations are as follows. I have several times 

 handled skins of this animal from the Western plains, from which 

 the horn-sheath could easily be drawn, exposing to view a partially 

 formed horn beneath. These, I have every reason to believe, were 

 wild animals. I think, at the least, I have examined six or eight 

 such cases ; also I have noticed many cases in which the horn- 

 sheath insensibly graded into skin, and was covered with hair for a 

 considerable distance from its base, and many other cases where 

 the demarcation was sharply drawn. Unfortunately I cannot re- 

 call at what seasons of the year these animals were killed. Again : 

 in two or three cases have I known of taxidermists, uninformed 

 that the phenomenon was known, coming to an independent con- 

 clusion that the antelope sheds its horns. 



Now, let us see vk'hat the evidence amounts to. The generally 

 accepted belief that confinement effects moultings must be taken 

 into account ; but, as far as I am aware, there is nothing in this 

 evidence that would lend any support whatever to the idea that it 

 could produce such a remarkable change as that of a permanently 

 horned Cavicornia changing to a deciduous one. However, those 

 antelope kept by Dr. Canfield and Judge Caton can hardly be 

 strictly classed as animals in confinement. That of Dr. Canfield 

 used to go hunting with him as far as twelve miles from home, we 

 are told, and " hunted coyotes with tho dogs at night ; " while 

 those of Judge Caton had the run of a large park. Neither can a 

 change of climate or natural food be called in to account for this 

 moult as described by Dr. Canfield, for his buck was living in its 

 native habitat. 



The opinion of the hunters of Fort Union is of considerable 

 value. While hunters, Indians, etc., are not good at distinguish- 

 ing species, yet habits, when well marked, are usually much more 

 familiar to them as a class than to naturalists. 



My own observations on prepared skins also point very strongly 

 toward the same conclusion. In no manner did these indicate an 

 abnormal physical state. Those observed in the United States in 

 captivity evidently were healthy ; and so good an observer as Mr. 

 Bartlett would hardly have failed to have stated the fact if the 

 specimen under his care was in poor health. That bucks killed in 

 December and January all have short horns, grading insensibly 

 into skin, and with base covered with hair, while those killed in the 

 spring and summer months almost all have large horns, definitely 

 marked off from the skin, can, I think, be explained in no other 

 way than by an annual moult. That such is the almost universal 

 belief of naturalists, my citations tend to show. 



As the point is one of considerable interest, I have ventured to 

 take up so much of your space, hoping thereby to call out some 

 original observations from your readers. Henry L. Ward. 



Tacubaya, D.F., Mex., Jan. lo. 



Felspar, or Feldspar i* 



I HAVE read with interest the recfent notes in Science, Nos. 305, 

 306, and 309, on the orthography of " felspar " or " feldspar." 



Whether the error consists in the omission or in the insertion of 

 the d, seems doubtful. But apart from " national prejudice " in the 

 matter, — which, if it exists elsewhere than in the imagination of 

 your correspondent, "J. D. D.," is certainly to be deprecated, — 

 there are, it seems to me, good reasons for defending and adopting 

 the British custom of spelling the word. These are based on 

 probability, common sense, and, last, though not least, appropriate- 

 ness. 



It may, I think, if there is no proof to the contrary, be admitted 

 that the name was originally given by a miner, or a mineralogist, 

 and not by an agriculturist ; and, if so, then it is in the highest de- 

 gree improbable that either the miner or the mineralogist would 

 associate this particular substance with the fields, with which it 

 has no obvious connection, and it is in an equal degree probable 

 that he would associate it with the rocks of which it is one of the 

 chief constituents. In any case, the British custom of referring it 

 to fek, ox fehen ("a rock," " rockspar ") is both sensible and appro- 

 priate, neither of which can be said of its reference to feld or felt 

 (" a field," " fieldspar "). 



On these considerations alone, and not because of " national 

 prejudice," or even custom, I consider it advisable to adhere to the 

 spelling adopted by nearly all English geologists until some better 

 reason than mere assertion, or the custom elsewhere, is advanced 

 for not doing so. Alfred R. C. Selwyn. 



Ottawa, Can., Jan. 14. 



The Soaring of Birds. 



Professor Pickering may possibly have the correct explana- 

 tion of the soaring of birds ; and, if so, will he be kind enough to 

 explain it more strongly, so that the explanation may have the force 

 of a demonstration in geometry ? As it now stands, there ap- 

 pears to be a fallacy somewhere. 



If the bird is acted on by two forces, AS and AD, the resultant 

 force would carry him to C ; and he could by no means get to G 

 except by the action of a third force, which might be represented 

 by a line drawn from C to G. Professor Pickering makes no men- 

 tion of any such third force, but without it how could the bird get 

 to G? Wm. Kent. 



Passaic, N.J., Jan. 12. 



The Color of Katydid. 



I observe in Science of Jan. 1 1 mention of a pink katydid 

 found by L. N. Johnson, Evanston, 111. A large female speci- 

 men was found on my place at Wood's Holl, Mass., as early as 

 1S74, and sent to Professor Packard. Two others have been found 

 at the same place, so that it would seem to be a defined species. 



Jos. Story Fay. 



Boston, Mass., Jan. 21. 



