July 7, 1893.] 



SCIENCE. 



length. It was clear from an inspection of those most recently 

 killed, that they had been killed by some animal for food. The 

 flesh of all had at least been partly devoured, but it was observed 

 that not a carapace nor a plastron was broken. The reptiles had 

 been killed, apparently, by some sharp-beaked bird, by thrusting 

 its beak between the joints of the reptile's armor, so to speak. 

 The loon is clearly competent to do this, but Icons are seldom 

 seen in this locality. Moreover these birds would hardly drag 

 their prey so far inland to devour it, as was observed to be the 

 case with many of the turtles. The blue heron is more abundant 

 here than the loon, but still not abundant enough to be credited 

 with so much destructive work on animals so large. I have never 

 suspected him, either, of being a turtle-eater. The only other 

 birds competent to do the work and sufficientlj' numerous and 

 intelligent to be suspected, are crows. Several flocks of these 

 were hovering about the locality, and though we were not able to 

 approach the wary birds close enough to observe them feeding, our 

 suspicions fell upon them. Has any reader of Science observed 

 crows killing turtles ? If so, is this a well established habit of 

 the bird or is it one which has been recently acquired? 



' Edson S Bastin. 



Chicago, 111., 3421 Dearborn Street, June 14. 



The Aurora. 



Dr. Veedee's reply of June 2nd, is so objectionable on ac- 

 count of the positive way in which he closes his part of the 

 argument (believing, as 1 do, that his facts are in fault) leaving it 

 to be believed that at -'no point throughout the research has 

 there appeared to be even the slightest ' chance ' for an alterna- 

 tive hypothesis,'' that I am once more tempted to reply. Let 

 me, before passing on, emphasize the fact that we are not dis- 

 cussing the question of " magnetic f forms "and sun-spots. I be- 

 lieve there is only one astronomer and physicist of any eminence 

 who disbelieves in this association, so that as far as discussion of 

 the question is concerned, we may consider it as practically 

 closed; but, even if I held the contrary opinion with the majori- 

 ty, so long as an opponent of such eminence held out, I should 

 consider it inadvisable to be as positive as Dr. Veeder in 

 his last letter, on the subject of the aurora, where, I believe, I am 

 not alone in supposing there is reason to doubt a connection be- 

 tween this display and areas of disturbance on the eastern limb of 

 the sun. I have raised some well-kuown objections to this theory, 

 and, as a rule, have teen met by Dr. Veeder with generalities 

 {Science, April 7, 28, May 19 and June 2); it is unnecessary to 

 mention them again here, so that I shall content myself with dis- 

 cussing this last contribution, which leaves me in such an uncom- 

 fortable position, apparently. 



The whole bMse and superstructure of this theory is erected 

 upon a solar period of rotation of " 27J days," and to quote from 

 a letter which I have received from Dr. Veeder, dated March 16, 

 1892, the addition of "a few hours difference in the length of 

 the period introduces a drift into the tables that becomes every- 

 where apparent " Surely this is a suspicious degree of perfection 

 in the theory, as no one knows what the solar period of rotation 

 is: such periods as have been determined from sun-spots (the 

 only possible method so far) give values between 25 and 27J 

 days, dependmg on the solar latitude of the spot; yet, the addi- 

 tion of a "few hours" can introduce a "drift which becomes every- 

 where apparent." when 2* days is left out of the tabulating with- 

 out apparent effect, for, it is evident, that in considering the ef- 

 fects of the return to the eastern limb of a sun-spot or area of 

 disturbance, that it is not a fixed rotational period that should 

 be used, but the one belonging to the latitude of the spot un^ler 

 discussion. 



This year auroras were visible here on the following days of 

 the year: the 5tb, 6th, 8th, 21st, Both, 36th, 44th, 4oth, 46th, 

 47th, 104th, 109th, 127th, 128th, 130th, 144th, 145th, 160th, 164tb, 

 16oth and 166tb. If auroras are caused by a disturbed solar area 

 at the eastern limb, we should find, by adding the interval 

 adopted by Dr. Veeder of 27i days to any of the above days, the 

 probable date of the returning display. What do we find in fact? 

 That, of the 52 periods obtained by adding this interval in succes- 



sion to the above days, up to the present date, there were only 

 10 of the days so determined on which displays took place; that 

 is, 20 per cent of successes as against 80 per cent of failures. In 

 illustration of the above, the aurora of the 5th d-iy should have 

 reappeared on the 32£, 59i, 86j. 114 and MH; from the 

 days of auroras given above, it will be seen it appeared on none 

 of the required dates; nor did that of the 6th; that of the 8th re- 

 appeared twice out of five solar periods; the 21st, once out of 

 five ; the 35th, once out of four, and so on. 



One more objection, previously overlooked, before passing on. 

 I am of opinion (no one can be certain, failing the necessary ob- 

 servations), that there is practically no instance in which aurora 

 displays are not taking place in one hemisphere or other of the 

 earth; a large proportion should be observed co-incident with 

 any other class of recurrent phenomena, and think it possible that 

 "chance," which Dr. Veeder avoids the discussion of, is really 

 an important element in our discussion, as I shall now endeavor 

 to prove this by his own admissions. 



In a letter to me, dated May 4, 1892, be says: "The year 

 1879. selected for printing as an illustration of the results seen 

 throughout the entire table, is one of profound minimum at 

 which times solar disturbances are well separated from each 

 other and the relation comes out distinctly although for the con- 

 struction of- such a table one year is just as good as another." 

 (italics are mine.) This is a perfectly sound conclusion, and by 

 it alone might this theory stani or fall if " chance" is not, or is, 

 as important as 1 maintain. On May 13th, Dr. Veeder writes: 

 (This table of comparison between the phenomena being now 

 printed) "It [1S79] being a year of minimum the relation does 

 not come out so strongly as ivhen disturbances were more numer- 

 ous. In the next year (1880) the numbers would be much larger 

 and the relation in every way more chstinct. 



So far, then. Dr. Veeder has been about equally positive on 

 both sides of this question, both of which opinions are apparent- 

 ly obtained from the observations he is in possession of, leaving 

 the possibility open (it is his suggestion) that we are very far 

 from "a realizing sense, that it is facts and not a personality 

 against which" we "are contending." 



Might I again suggest the advisability of setting a limit on the 

 term "eastern limb," adhering rigidly to it throughout the inves- 

 tigation, not admitting too much of the suppositional when sun- 

 spots fail at the required period by thesubsliiution of " faculae,'' 

 and seeing how far the element of ' chance " enters into this 

 question by showing a continuous series of comparisons through 

 a semi-period, at least, of solar activity. 



W. A. Ashe. 



Quebec, May 17. 



Scientific Words in the Century Dictionary. 



Although one of the most useful books published, the Century 

 Dictionary is, of course, not faultless. The mention of a uptake 

 in a recent issue of The Critic reminded me also of the follow- 

 ing:— 



According to the latest edition of Foster's "Physiology," saliva 

 "in a healthy subject is alkaline, especially when the secretion 

 is abundant. When the saliva is scanty, or when the subject 

 suffers from dyspepsia, the reaction of the mouth may be acid." 

 According to the Century Dictionary, the saliva " is a colorless 

 ropy liquid which normally has an acid reaction." 



The word "grille," which is commonly used in Louisiana, is 

 defined by the Century Dictionary as a "a mulatto— especially a 

 mulatto woman." I have copied in a note-book from a lecture 

 delivered in New Orleans by Hon. Charles Gayarre, the historian 

 of Louisiana and authority on such matters, the following: — 



••In Creole America there is a very mixed population Even 

 in very early times there were these distinctions: European, or 

 fresh white immigrant; Creole, or pure white American of Euro- 

 pean parentage ; the aboriginal Indian ; the griffe, or cross between 

 Indian and negro; the mestizo, or mixed white and Indian; the 

 mulatto, etc., etc." These may not be the exact words of the 

 speaker, since I may have misunderstood or copied it wrongly, 

 but I tliink the same statement may be found in one of his works. 

 Grille, no doubt, is from the Spanish grifos, meaning frizzled 



