276 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XIX. No. 484 



found only Y^m of 1 P^'' *'®d'' of oxide of copper, an amount 

 so small that one would need to eat from one-half to one ton 

 of these grapes, stems, skins, and all, to obtain the least in- 

 jurious effect, and that, notwithstanding the fact that the 

 bunches were selected from those having the largest amount 

 of the copper mixture adhering to them. 



In sample No. 2 not a trace of copper could be found. It 

 would seem from the above that, even under the most care- 

 less use of the copper solutions, no injurious effects need be 

 feared, and that when properly applied there will not be a 

 trace of copper left upon the fruit at harvesting. 



Apples. 



Early in December, the Pall Mall Gazette of London, 

 England, published an article headed ''American Apples. 

 Alarming Allegations — Are They Doctored with Arsenic ? " 

 Then the statement is made "that American orchardists use 

 arsenic in such large quantities to protect their fruit from 

 insects as to completely saturate it, and that the bloom or 

 white powder found on American apples is arsenic, brought 

 to the surface by evaporation, and, if the fruit is eaten, this 

 should be wiped off to avoid injurious effects. That the 

 delicate, unnatural (?) bloom of the American apples is due 

 to arsenic, a drug that is largely used by people, especially 

 the fair sex in America, to make the complexion fair," and 

 other statements equally absurd and without a shadow of 

 foundation. These statements were undoubtedly made in 

 the interest of speculators for the purpose of injuring the 

 sale of American apples in the English market. 



To determine the amount of copper and arsenic adhering 

 to the surface of apples (for it could not have been absorbed 

 into the substance of the fruit) which had been sprayed three 

 times with the Bordeaux mixture and Paris-green, twenty 

 apples, measuring one peck, were taken to the State Experi- 

 ment Station for analysis. The amount of copper oxide 

 found on these apples was twenty-two thousandths (.022) of 

 one grain. This equals about five ten-thousandths (.0005) 

 of one ounce to the barrel, or requiring two thousand barrels 

 to yield one ounce of copper oxide. The specimens selected 

 for this analysis were those with the roughest surface, to 

 which would adhere more of the copper solution of Paris- 

 green than to the average apples. 



Not a trace of arsenic could be detected in this analysis, 

 as Paris-green (average samples of Paris-green contain about 

 thirty-three parts of oxide of copper and sixty-one parts of 

 arsenious oxide) was not used after July 1, but it was proba- 

 bly all washed off during the three months following, before 

 the apples were gathered, which was Oct. 1. 



When we consider the fact that probably not one fruit- 

 grower in one hundred throughout the country used Paris- 

 green at all, and that not one barrel in thousands came from 

 sprayed trees, the absurdity of the "scare" becomes still 

 more apparent. 



discovery by Filhol and independently by Forsyth Major that the 

 foot-bones of Maerqtherium. which has been considered an. 

 Edentate, really belong to Chalicotherium. As the teeth are wholly 

 diflferent from those of the Edentates, and similar to those of the 

 Ungulates, this genus represents a very aberrant and unique 

 family. 



The only known Ungulates which present a dentition at all 

 similar are Palceosyops and Meniscotherium. The latter is from 

 near the base of the Eocene, and last year in analyzing its denti- 

 tion I found so many very striking resemblances to that of Chali- 

 cotherium that I was led to suggest that Meniscotherium might be 

 the long-sought ancestral form, reserving final judgment until the 

 feet were discovered. Marsh has very recently figured the feet 

 of Meniscotherium (Hyracops), and, upon the whole, I think they 

 sustain the supposition that the Chalicotheriidce were derived from 

 the Meniscotheriidce. There are some profound differences, but 

 these are mainly such as separate primitive from highly modified 

 forms. The resemblances consist in the tridactylism of both 

 genera and the marked similarity in tooth structure. I will dis- 

 cuss these points in more detail in the American Naturalist for 

 June. HenKY F. OsboRN. 



New York, May 5. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



«*« Correspondents are requested to be as brief as possible. The writer's nam* 

 is in all cases required as proof of good faith. 



On request in advance, one hundred copies of the number containing his 

 communication will be furnished free to any correspondent. 



The editor will be glad to publish any queries consonant with the character 

 of the journal. 



The Ancestry of Chalicotherium. 



Chalicotherium is a genus which appears in the lower Miocene 

 simultaneously in Europe and America, where it has been very 

 recently discovered. It extends into the Pliocene and then dis- 

 appears. It has attracted unusual attention of late, owing to the 



Detection of Artificial Gems. 



I WAS much interested in reading an article by Mr. W. G. 

 Miller on the '• Detection of Artificial (Imitation) Gems," that ap- 

 peared in your issue of April 29. The writer states that, 1, hard- 

 ness is no test for cut stones, because cutting softens the surface; 

 2, that specific gravity is no test in polished stones, because polish- 

 ing affects the specific gravity, and because imitation-gem manu- 

 facturers made them with a specific gi'avity as near that of the 

 real gem as possible ; 3, that the examination of the optical prop- 

 erties of cut stones is difficult (and therefore presumably imprac- 

 ticable) because of the many facets ; 4, that fusibility is the only 

 reliable test. I desire to advert briefly; but first let me say that 

 the title of the article, ' ' The Detection of Artificial (Imitation) 

 Gems," is misleading, and confounds two totally distinct things. 

 Artificial gems, such as the rubies of Fremy or the emeralds of 

 Hautefeille, are constitutionally identical with real gems, but are 

 the product of a chemical process, and not the work of nature ; 

 whereas imitation gems, such as paste or glass or the so-called 

 doublets, are gems only in appearance, consisting of tvvo or three 

 layers of quartz or garnet and one or more layers of glass of such 

 intensity of color as to tone down or change the quartz or garnet 

 to the red color of the ruby or the green color of the emerald or 

 the blue of the sapphire, according as it is intended to counterfeit 

 one or the other of these. The same confusion is also apparent 

 in the statement that "the ancient Egyptians and Greeks were 

 well versed in the manufacture of artificial stones." That they 

 produced remarkable glass imitations is indisputable, — witness 

 the marvellous collections of antique pastes in the museums of 

 Europe, — but it is safe to say that the ancients never produced an 

 artificial precious stone of any kind. So much for the title. 



Now, second, as to hardness as a test, let me say that I differ 

 entirely from Mr. Miller when he states that the hardness of a 

 precious stone is reduced by cutting or polishing. The hardness 

 is not affected in any way, and so far from cutting impairing the 

 test for hardness it can in point of fact be more delicately given if 

 made on cut and polished stones with properly prepared points 

 made of the various gem minerals than when made on the rough 

 uneven surfaces of uncut and natural minerals. That polishing 

 reduces the hardness by one-tenth is ambiguous. Though in the 

 Mohs scale of hardness the sapphire is placed at 9 and the diamond 

 at 10, it would be more in keeping with fact when the abrasive 

 quality or hardness of a diamond is considered to rate the diamond 

 at 100 or even 1,000, so great is the difference between the two. 

 Surely the writer does not mean to imply that, simply by polishing, 

 the hardness of the diamond is reduced to 9 (the hardness of the 

 sapphire), or that the sapphire is reduced to 8 (the hardness of 

 topaz), or that topaz is reduced to 7 (the hardness of quartz). It 

 is well known that imitation (not artificial) gems will scratch glass, 

 and there is no reason why they should not. Their hardness is 



