NOA^EMBER 7, 1890.] 



SCIENCE. 



263 



clemmys. There is a large yellow spot behind the eyes, two yellow 

 stripes from the orbit backwards, and a very characteristic yellow 

 stripe covering the whole lower jaw. The upper and lower jaws 

 are rounded in front. There are males and females in the collec- 

 tion. The localities where these tortoises were found are Mande- 

 ville, La., and Pensacola, Fla. Specimens from Mandeville, La., 

 I consider as the types. Such specimens are also in the collection 

 of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. ,sent by Mr. G. 

 Kohu, No. 15,511, etc. 



3. Malacoclemmys Kohnii (sp. nov.). — Three specimens labelled 

 3f. geograpliica are in Mr. Kohn's collection. They represent an- 

 other interesting new species. The form of the shell is much like 

 that of M. oculifera. The coloration is totally different, and re- 

 sembles very much that of M. Lesueuri. The skull is quite differ- 

 ent from that of 31. geographica. The alveolar surfaces of the 

 upper jaw do not meet in the middle line as in M. geographica : 

 they are not so broad, therefore. They resemble more M. Leaueuri 

 in that respect, but are broader. The symphysis of the lower jaw 

 is longer than in that species. The coloration of the head is also 

 quite different fiom M. Lesueuri: there is no big yellow spot behind 

 the eye, but a thin yellow line, which is connected with another one 

 running behind from the upper part of the oi'bit. The localities 

 where found are Bayou Lafourche, La.; Bayou Teche, St. Martins- 

 ville, La.; Pensacola, Fla. I take the Louisiana forms as types. 

 I hav.e named this species in honor of Mr. G. Kohn, who collected 

 the specimens. 



From this it is seen that we have now iive species of Malaco- 

 clemmys in the United States, — M. terrapin, Schoepff; M. geo- 

 graphica, Les.; M. Lesueuri, Gray; M. oculifera, sp. nov.; M. 

 Kohnii, sp. nov. 



It is probable that M. terrapin, the common diamond-back, 

 shows variations according to different localities, and I should be 

 very glad to get specimens from different points on the coast. The 

 new species will be fully described and figured soon. 



G. Baue. 



Clark University, Worcester, Mass., Oct, 87. 



Remains of the Primitive Elephant found in Grinnell, lo. 



However common the remains of the mammoth may have be- 

 come, there is always more or less interest attached to the discov- 

 ery of each new individual, however fragmentary, or wherever 

 found According to vague rumors, the first evidence of the 

 njammoth's remains in Grinnell came to light so early in the his- 

 tory of the town, that it has passed into obscurity; and the bones, 

 treasured for a time as private relics, have simply disappeared, no 

 one knows just when or how. It is not certain whether this 

 doubtful specimen was a distinct individual, or part of the one 

 subsequently found near the same place. The last one alluded to 

 was found in 1884, while breaking ground for the Eagle Block, 

 on the north-east corner of Main Street and Fourth Avenue. This 

 animal, a large adult male, is represented by a tusk (eight feet 

 long and nine inches in diameter), several grinders, lower jaw, 

 and part of zygomatic arch, preserved in the museum of Iowa 

 College. These bones occurred about five feet below the surface, 

 and were in an exceedingly soft and perishable condition, as simi- 

 larly situated remains usually are; but, owing to the skill of Pro- 

 fessor H. W. Parker, the tusk and teeth especially were so well 

 fixed with hardening-mixtures, that they were removed in an 

 exceptionally fine condition. The other bones were naturally more 

 fragmentary. The mandible is represented by a large fragment, 

 including the en tire symphysial region, the left ramus being complete 

 as far as the angle. No limb bones in whole or part were taken out 

 with these fragments, although many bones were seen in the clay 

 passing under the walls of an adjoining block, endangering its 

 foundations if dug out, and consequently left there. Doubtless 

 when other excavations are made on the lots immediately adjoin- 

 ing, other bones will be found. Judging by the condition of the 

 parts now at hand, it is not unreasonable lo hope that a skeleton 

 nearly complete may yet be unearthed. 



Remains of another Elephas primigenius have just come to 

 light, found Oct. 6, 1890, within half a mile of the site of the one 

 of 1884. There is additional interest attached to this one, because 

 of the depth at which it occurred. Workmen, while engaged in 



excavating an enormous well to supply the water-tiinks of the 

 Iowa Central Railroad, came upon certain badly broken mammoth 

 bones, in the drift clay and pebbles, at a depth of twenty feet. 

 All the bones, save a well-worn molar, were badly comminuted, 

 and all the surroundings lead inevitably to the conclusion that 

 they were transported wilh the drift in which they o'^curred. "In 

 addition to the small though complete molar, there were limb 

 bones, a scnpula, ribs, and a small tusk some five or six inches in 

 diameter. The tusk, however, extended into the sides of the 

 well in such a way that it could not be taken out without danger 

 of a cave-in, and was left. The scapula, when found, was fairly 

 complete, but was almost destroyed in the taking-out, little beside 

 the thickened parts in the region of the glenoid fossa remaining. 

 The few limb bones, owing to their fragmentary condition, coupled 

 with the inexperience of the workmen in digging out such re- 

 mains, were almost totally destroyed; the proximal end of a tibia, 

 a fragment of the shaft of a femur, and the casts in clay of the 

 medullary cavities of the same, being about all that remains to 

 show for them at all. Although it is by no means uncommon 

 to find skeletons of mammoths close to one another, yet it is less 

 so to find thena so far below the surface. Erwin H. Barbour. 

 Iowa College, Grinnell, to,, Oct, 15, 



Photo-Mechanical Work. 



I WISH to remove, as far as may be, a wrong impression which 

 your readers get ftom a short news item in your issue of Oct. 24, 

 p. 231. Speaking of the coming exhibition by the Camera Club, 

 of work by the several photo-mechanical processes, you say that 

 "it is a remarkable fact that in no exhibition have they [photo- 

 mechanical results] been brought together for comparison and 

 study." 



This statement is very misleading. In the United^^States 

 National Museum in Washington, In the Section of Graphic Arts, 

 under Mr. S. R. Koehler's management as curator, a large space 

 (I think about nine hundred square feet of wall and cases) is 

 devoted solely to photo-mechanical work aud processes. This 

 collection is both historical and technical; and I am perfectly safe 

 in saying that there is no exhibition or collection of the kind any- 

 where that comes near it in instructiveness, general excellence, 

 and beauty. In completeness the specimens here brought together 

 form a remarkable whole, extending from the earliest times with- 

 out a break to the present day. 



The Camera Club will, I do not doubt, make a beautiful exhi- 

 bition of recent photo-mechanical work; but the older necessary 

 steps in the evolution of these arts, most difficult to get and most 

 difficult to present effectively for educational and comparative 

 purposes, are not likely to be represented in New York as they are 

 in the National Museum here. J. W. Osborne. 



Washington, D,C,, Oct, 30. 



My attention has been called to a note in your issue of Oct. 24, 

 announcing an exhibition of photo-mechanical process-work to be 

 held by the New York Camera Club. In this note it is stated to 

 be " a remarkable fact that in no exhibition liave they [i.e., the 

 photo- mechanical processes] been brought together for comparison 

 and study." By referring to the "Classification of Exhibits in 

 the Section of Graphic Arts," of the Smithsonian Institution, 

 United States National Museum, you will see that considerable 

 space is devoted to the illustration of the processes in question at 

 the institution named. We endeavor not only to illustrate the 

 various processes in their technical aspects and in their results as 

 they are seen to-day, but it is our aim also to bring together an 

 historical series ; and I am happy to sa.v that our efforts in this 

 direction have not been quite unsuccessful. Among the speci- 

 mens illustrating the development of the photo-mechanical pro- 

 ces'^es historically is one by Nicephore Niepce (1824), while Fox, 

 Talbot, Poiteviu, Paul Pretsch, Tessie du Motay, Asser, Toovey, 

 Osborne, Sir Henry James, Davaune, Lemercier, Pouncy, Bradford 

 (of Boston), and others, are represented by several specimens each. 

 That the workers of to-day, especially those of America, are well 

 represented, goes without saying. 



For these results the United States National Museum is largely 



