April 3, I9un.] 



SCIENCE. 



547 



to err against the most generally accepted rule 

 covering the particular matter discussed; and 

 even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that 

 this opinion was wrong, it still remains true 

 that they unnecessarily created diificulties and 

 left opportunities for an annoying divergence 

 of opinion.* 



Systematists might ' be much happier ' for 

 the time being if left to go their own ways, 

 but the trouble would merely be thrown with 

 increased force on the shoulders of those com- 

 ing after. Dr. D. S. Jordan, when recently 

 replying in Science to a criticism of mine, 

 indicated the desirability of letting each case 

 stand on the basis of the original publication, 

 and not leaving the types of genera or species 

 to be determined by the process of subsequent 

 elimination. Now as a matter of plain com- 

 mon sense this is surely much to be com- 

 mended, but if I adopt Dr. Jordan's view (as 

 I should much prefer to do), what am I to 

 do about the innumerable names of genera 

 (especially among the Lepidoptera) which have 

 been determined by the ' elimination process ' ? 

 It is surely excusable to wish to be consistent. 



Zoologists seem to be agreeing to the emi- 

 nently sensible view that homonyms must be 

 exactly alike, not merely similar. Botanists, 

 hovs^ever, have made and are making many 

 changes on account of mere similarity in 

 names. For example, Batschia, carolinensis 

 Gmelin, 1791, is a Lithospermum, and the 

 name of the species is suppressed (being 

 changed to gmelini) because of Lithosper- 

 mum carolinianum Lamarck, which is an 

 Onosmodium. According to my view the first 

 mentioned plant should be Lithospermum 

 carolinensis (Gmel.). Many names of genera, 

 even in zoology, are changed for such reasons, 

 and as the matter can not be yet said to be 

 settled, I think it is worth while to make as 

 strong a stand as possible for the rule 'no 



* According to the plan indicated by Mr. 

 Bather for saving the name Cucumites lesquereuxii, 

 most published species would be nameless, as the 

 name rarely occurs after the description! I 

 should like to know what Mr. Bather thinks about 

 the substitution of Washingtonia Eaf., for 

 Osmorrhiza Raf. as now adopted by American 

 botanists. 



homonymy without absolute identity of 

 names.' 



Zoologists generally agree that when sub- 

 genera or sections are raised to the rank of 

 genera, the subgeneric or section names must 

 be retained for the genera. Botanists, how- 

 ever, have frequently denied this altogether. 



All these divergent practices are productive 

 of future difiiculties, and I can not see that 

 anything is gained by going ahead with our 

 eyes shut. Uniformity has to come, sooner or 

 later. T. D. A. Cockerell. 



A RARE SCIENTIFIC BOOK. 



To THE Editor of Science: I would like 

 information concerning the following very 

 rare scientific book : 



Purkenje : ' Commentatio de examine phys- 

 iologico organi visus et systematis cutanei. 

 Vratislav' (Breslau), 1823. Francis Galton 

 states in ' Finger Prints ' ('92), that there is 

 one copy in America. As I am desirous of 

 locating this or any other American copy, I 

 shall be grateful to any one who can give me 

 information on the subject. 



ELarris Hawthorne Wilder. 



Smith College, 

 March 6, 1903. 



SHORTER ARTICLES. 



ORIGIN OF THE WORD ' BAROMETER.' 



The instrument familiar to us all as the 

 barometer was first universally known by the 

 name of its inventor as ' Torricelli's tube ' ; 

 de Guericke, the inventor of the air-pump, 

 called his huge water-barometer ' Semper 

 Vivum,' also ' Weather Mannikin,' with the 

 Latin form ' Anemoscopium.' 



Soon after the year 1665 the words ' baro- 

 scope ' and ' barometer ' came into general 

 use in England, but the individual to whom 

 the credit belongs for originating these terms 

 has not been certainly known; the assertion 

 made by a contributor to the Edinburgh Re- 

 view for 1812 that ' baroscope ' was first used 

 by Professor George Sinclair, of Scotland, 

 in 1668, is an error, for both words occur in 

 the Philosophical Transactions four years 

 earlier. The passage is unsigned and reads 

 thus: 



