December i, 1893.] 



SCIENCE. 



303 



and there are some noticeable differences. The tail, as 

 13 usual in woodpeckers, consists -of twelve rectrices, of 

 which the middle pair are the longest, and the outer 

 pair are not only very short, but they are inserted 

 almost over the pair next to them, and are much less 

 stiff and pointed than the others. On the wing I found 

 ten primaries and eleven secondaries and four feathers 

 in the alula. Of the secondaries the first seven are of 



Fig. 3.— Chin and Throat, 

 show the apteria on the lov 



r (Ceophloeus pileatus). To 



about equal length, and the rest decrease rapidly, the 

 eleventh being the shortest, though it is interesting to 

 note that it is longer than the first primary. No sexual 

 differences were noted in the pterylosis until I exam- 

 ined the proportionate lengths of the primaries, when I 

 was astonished to find a difference which seems well 



Fig. 4.— Wings of Male and Female. 



so great as to warrant its illustration. In Fig. 4 will be 

 seen the tips of the wings as they appeared in each sex, 

 and the difference in shape will be at once remarked. 

 In both the first primary is very short, only one-quarter 

 the length of the sixth; the second is considerably 

 longer, reaching, in the male, to within two and one- 

 fourth inches of the tip, and in the female to within one 

 and three-fourths inches; the third is next in both 

 sexes, but is three-fourths of an inch shorter than the 

 sixth in the male and less than one-fourth of an inch in 

 the female ; the fourth is almost equal to the fifth and 

 sixth in the female, but in the male is shorter than the 

 seventh ; the latter in the female is much shorter than 

 the third; in the male the eighth, ninth and tenth are 

 all longer than the second, while in the female the lat- 

 ter is longer than the ninth and tenth. Thus we see 

 that the wing formula in the two sexes is as follows: 

 Male, -6574389 10 21 

 Female, -5643782 9101 



It is hardly necessary to state that both wings showed 

 these same differences, which Fig. 4 will make clear. 



Aftershafts are present on all the contour feathers, 

 and are of fairly good size though rather weak. The 

 oil-gland is ornamented with a large tuft of white 

 feathers in marked contrast to the surrounding black. 

 Down -feathers seem to be wanting, though "half- 

 down," as Nitzsch calls it, is present on most of the 

 spaces. Filoplumes are plenty on all the tracts. 



Figs. 3 and 4 are drawn three-fourths natural size, and 

 Figs. I and 2 are not quite one-half. 



SECRET LANGUAGE OF CHILDEEN. 



BY OSCAE CHEISMAN, A. M., FELLOW IN CLAKK UNIVERSITY, WORCES- 

 TER, MASS. 



We adults are rather apt to rate children's powers too 

 low. This, no doubt, comes from a lack of study of these 

 powers, and, perhaps, from a wrong comparison of the 

 child with the adult. In the power of originating it may 

 be that the child is the superior of the adult. This is well 

 illustrated in the forming of languages. In this field the 

 child seems to be perfectly at home, as may be shown to 

 any one who will make a study of such ; or if he will look 

 back into his own childhood he will find left in memory 

 traces of such languages, or if one will keep his ears open 

 among children he will be very sure to find such languages 

 here and there. Only on the other Sunday afternoon, 

 while, with my wife and little girl, stopping at a small 

 depot on a railroad in South Worcester to rest from a 

 walk, a number of pretty tough-looking boys came along 

 and stopped to play. At first, from their language, I 

 thought they were foreigners, but I soon found out that 

 they were using a language of their own. I did not have 

 the opportunity at this time to make inquiries about their 

 language, for which I am truly sorry. 



The editor of "Am Ur-Quell,"* a German Folk-Lore 

 paper, gives over 150 specimens of Secret Languages col- 

 lected during the past three years. To be sure, quite a 

 number of these are not languages of children, as some are 

 of thieves, peasants, secret societies, etc., but who knows 

 but that many of these may have their foundation in child- 



worthy of note. Of course it must be remembered that 

 I examined only one specimen of each sex, and so this 

 difference may be only an individual variation, but it is 



*I am indebted to Dr. A. F. Chamberlain, Lecturer in Anthropology, Clark 

 University, for having my attention called to these languages in Am Ur- 

 Quell, and also tor the privilege o£ using his numbers of this journal. 



'I am indebted to Mr. L. N. Wilson, Clerk of Clark University, for his hav- 

 ing called nay attention to the following: " . . . . he went on to mention 

 the one sole accomplishment which his sons had imported from Winchester. 



This was the Ziph language Repeat the vowel or diphthong of 



everv syllable, prelixing to the vowel so repeated the letter G. Thus, for 

 exatnple; Shall we go away in an hour? This in Ziph becomes: 'Shagall wege 

 gogo agawagay igin agan hougour?' "—"The Collected Writings of Thomas 

 de Quincey, New and Unabridged Edition," by David Mason. Edinburgh, 

 1889, vol. 1., p. 203. 



