456 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. IV. No. 91. 



him, I am charged with an ' attempt to seize 

 the credit,' and with taking part in a ' proceed- 

 ing ;' and the quotation is ' irrelevent !' 



The Mt. Hamilton observations of canals 

 within the dai-k regions were made in 1892. 

 Mr. Douglass says that he and Prof. Pickering 

 also observed them, at Arequipa, in 1892. 

 What I objected to was the fact that Mr, Low- 

 ell's book speaks of them as if they were dis- 

 covered at Lowell Observatory, in 1894, by Mr. 

 Douglass and were- absolutely new. The 1892 

 observations, by two other observers, are en- 

 tirely overlooked by Mr. Lowell. For ventur- 

 ing to suggest that their history did not begin 

 in 1894, I am charged with an ' act of appro- 

 priation.' Further, so long as Mr. Lowell con- 

 siders the network of fine dark marking to be, 

 not water, but vegetation, and persists in calling 

 them 'canals,' he cannot object when another 

 observer of a more scientific turn of mind 

 chooses to call them ' streaks, ' so long as no 

 one knew, and no one even now knows, their 

 real character. 



The first projections on the terminator of 

 Mars were observed at Mt. Hamilton in 1890. 

 The first one was, as Mr. Douglass says, de- 

 tected by a visitor on one of the public Satur- 

 day nights. All the facts there are in the case 

 were published by the Lick Observatory staff 

 on two or more occasions, and Mr. Douglass is 

 indebted wholly to those published accounts for 

 his information. The morale of this observa- 

 tory is such that full credit is always given in 

 such a case. If the other observatory in ques- 

 tion had been equally disposed to give credit I 

 should not now have to give the history of the 

 subject. Mars was not regularly observed at 

 Mt. Hamilton in 1890. The great telescope was 

 devoted to other important work. On Satur- 

 day nights the telescope was directed upon 

 Mars for the benefit of 100 to 300 visitors, and 

 at such times the astronomer in charge very 

 often did not place his eye to the telescope for 

 several hours. It was on one of those pccasions 

 that a very prominent projection presented 

 itself. For suggesting that the history of the 

 prominences did not begin in 1894, 1 am charged 

 with ' an attempt on the rights of property. ' 



About vegetation, what did Schiaparelli say ? 

 He said the variations observed might be the 



result of ' extensive agricultural labor and irri- 

 gation upon a large scale.' The observed ap- 

 pearances might be explained by ' changes of 

 vegetation over a vast area. ' And his comment 

 on those theories is as follows : "For us, who 

 know so little of the physical state of Mars, and 

 nothing of its organic life, the great liberty of 

 possible supposition renders arbitrary all expla- 

 nations of this sort, and constitutes the gravest 

 obstacle to the acquisition of well-founded 

 notions." Nor is this all, for Prof. W. H. Pick- 

 ering suggested the same theory many years 

 ago. 



About Mr. Douglass' paragraph 8, what are 

 the facts and why does he not publish them ? 

 Here are the facts: In 1892 at Alleghany Ob- 

 servatory it was determined that the markings 

 on Mars came to the central meridian 7 degrees 

 (about 28 minutes) later than the predicted time 

 and attention was called to the discrepancy. 

 In 1894 Mr. Lowell at Flagstaff observed the 

 same discrepancy, but estimated its value at 5 

 degrees (about 20 minutes). Here are two 

 observations of the same discrepancy. One ob- 

 server of long experience estimates it at 7 de- 

 grees ; and the other observer at 5 degrees. 

 In the book under review the 5-degree estimate 

 is unfurled to the breeze from Flagstaff, 

 whereas the 1892 results are not even displayed 

 at half-mast, though the author was aware of 

 their existence. And yet when my review 

 called attention to the fact that the discrepancy 

 was observed and commented upon in 1892, 

 Mr. Douglass says that it ' will be seen to be an 

 error. ' 



My remark ' ' that there should be so many 

 evidences of apparent lack of familiarity with 

 the literature of the subject" was certainly the 

 most charitable form in which I could speak. 

 W. W. Campbell. 



SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. 

 The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution. By E. 



D. Cope, Ph.D. Chicago, The Open Court 



Publishing Co. 1896. 



In Primary Factors of Organic Evolution, Prof. 

 Cope is no longer a setter-forth of new doc- 

 trines, but ' ' the present book is an attempt 

 to select from the mass of facts accumulated by 

 biologists, those which, in the author's opinion, 



