September 23, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



407 



With regard to the first of these, which assumes 

 a primitive caudalward direction of the hair, 

 it may be suggested that a careful study of the 

 direction of the overlapping of scales not only 

 in the few mammals in which these structures 

 persist but in other scaly vertebrates, partic- 

 ularly reptiles, may show that the arrangement 

 of scales upon which this primitive hair direc- 

 tion is based is not so simple a one as it is here 

 assumed to be. My own investigation of this 

 subject, the results of which I hope later to 

 publish, has shown me that scale arrangement 

 may involve points and lines both of con- 

 vergence and of divergence. 



With regard to the second principle, that of 

 hair directions due to ' morphological changes,' 

 I have already confessed an inability to un- 

 derstand what phenomena this principle ac- 

 counts for or to determine upon what basis 

 any particular modification of the ' primitive 

 hair direction' would be ascribed to it. To 

 be sure, the author says distinctly that he 

 makes no attempt to discuss this principle. 

 By omitting, however, to at least clearly de- 

 fine it he exposes himself to the criticism of 

 having selected from the observed phenomena 

 of hair direction those for which he could dis- 

 cover or conjecture a mechanical cause, and of 

 having relegated to this nondescript class all 

 other phenomena except those which are in- 

 cluded under the supposed primitive direction. 



It is, indeed, inconceivable that, provided 

 mechanical forces can produce inlieritable 

 changes in hair direction, the hairy coat (or 

 in fact, the scaly coat) of a mammal should 

 at any stage of its evolution have been free 

 from the influence of such mechanical forces. 

 In other words, to explain a primitive hair 

 direction as to any less extent due to the ac- 

 tion of mechanical forces than are the devia- 

 tions from it is illogical. Thus while Kidd's 

 classification of hair tracts is a useful one 

 for purposes of discussion, to base such a 

 classification upon a distinct difference in 

 cause (i. e., natural selection, morphological 

 change and use inheritance) is to employ 

 arbitrary distinctions. 



We are indebted to Dr. Kidd for reviving 

 an especially fine field, not so much for theoret- 

 ical discussion as for scientific research which 



should eventually yield many data for such 

 discussion. What is particularly needed at 

 present is not a selection of facts to prove 

 Lamarckism, Darwinism, Weismannism or any 

 other theory, but a laborious, careful, complete 

 working out of the entire field of hair direc- 

 tions, in as many forms as possible, together 

 with a study of scale arrangement and the 

 relation of scales to hair, to determine, if pos- 

 sible, the primitive conditions. Science has no 

 place for dogmatic statement, and no hjrpoth- 

 esis, however satisfactory when considered in 

 view of one set of facts, should be protected at 

 the sacrifice of a knowledge of any other facts 

 which research may bring to light. Every 

 scientist wiU argue with Dr. Kidd that ' the 

 scientific attitude is that of judging a large 

 series of facts on their own merits, and ac- 

 cording to the weight of evidence, even if it 

 tend against a widely accepted hypothesis ! ' 



Inez L. Whipple. 

 Smith College, Northampton, Mass. 

 August 1, 1904. 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 



ON CITING THE TYPES OP NEW GENERA. 



It seems worth while to call attention to 

 the desirability of formally transferring the 

 species upon which new genera are based, when 

 these species have been earlier described in 

 other genera. It seems a very trifling mat- 

 ter, but a bibliographer has to cite what he 

 finds in print, and that only; and as a result 

 of the present practise of many zoologists, the 

 actual combination of a new generic name 

 with its type species often occurs, not at the 

 place where the genus is proposed, but acci- 

 dentally, as it were, in some other easily over- 

 looked place. To illustrate my meaning, I 

 may refer to a couple of very recent instances : 



Gilbertella, Eigenmann, Smiths. Misc. Coll., 



Vol. 45, p. 147. (1903.) 

 . " Type. — Anacyrtus alatus, Steind." 



DimmocTciaj Ashmead, Mem. Carnegie Mus., 



Vol. 1, p. 35Y. (1904.) 



" Type. — Eulophus incongruus, Ashm." 



It seems to me that the proper way would 



have been to write for the first, type, Gilbertella 



alata {Anacyrtus alatus, Steind.), and the 



