December 23, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



887 



As to the earlier uses of the word given in 

 Murray's ' New English Dictionary,' which, in 

 Dr. Eastman's opinion, furnish a further proof 

 of my want of accuracy, I regard them as 

 proving quite the contrary, as is shown in the 

 following brief analysis of the references 

 under geology. 



Eichard de Bury's use of the word is de- 

 fined as ' applied to the study of the law as 

 distinguished from the arts and sciences, 

 which are concerned with the works of God.' 



' Geologia ' is also the title of an Italian 

 work by F. Sessa, which is intended to prove 

 that the influences ascribed by astrologers to 

 the stars really proceeded from the earth itself. 

 As Murray evidently recognizes, neither of 

 these usages has any relation to modern 

 geology. 



He subdivides the later usages of the word 

 geology as (1) ' The science which treats of 

 the earth in general.' 



Of those referred to as having used it in 

 this sense, Erasmus Warren (1690) was a Suf- 

 folk rector, defending the literal correctness 

 of the Mosaic account of the deluge; B. Mar- 

 tin (1735), a learned optician, who classified 

 rather elaborately the science of his day; and 

 Nathan Bailey (1736) and Dr. Samuel John- 

 son (1755), lexicographers, who defined it as 

 ' the doctrine of the earth.' 



None of these, it is evident, could be con- 

 sidered to be geologists. 



It is only Murray's second division — namely, 

 ' the science which has for its object the in- 

 vestigation of the earth's crust, etc.,' which 

 corresponds to the modern acceptation of the 

 word considered in my address, and under this 

 head his first reference is to J. Hutton (1795), 

 who published sixteen years after De Saussure. 



Hence, in spite of Dr. Eastman's specious 

 representation of the facts, only a moment's 

 consideration of which he thinks necessary to 

 prove iny historical inaccuracy, I still main- 

 tain the correctness of my statement, in which 

 I have followed so excellent an authority as 

 Sir Archibald Geikie, who says, in his chapter 

 on De Saussure (' Pounders of Geology,' page 

 88), ' the earliest writer who dignified it [geol- 



ogy] with the name it now bears, was the first 

 great explorer of the Alps.' 



S. F. Emmons. 

 Washington, 



November 28, 1904. 



THE KELEP AND THE COTTON PLANT. 



To THE Editoe of SCIENCE : Professor 

 Wheeler's criticism of Dr. Cook's theory re- 

 garding the association of the kelep or Gaute- 

 malan ant, with the cotton for its nectar (Sci- 

 ence, December 2, page 768) is quite timely. 

 Dr. Cook's theory and the facts upon which 

 it is founded are decidedly unique. In bul- 

 letin 49, Division of Entomology, U. S. Dept. 

 of Agriculture, page 64, Professor Cook states 

 that in Texas ' More ants will be necessary, 

 however, for their protection, and the nectar- 

 producing qualities of the different varieties 

 may become a question of practical impor- 

 tance if the kelep should become established.' 

 " At present the nectar secreted on the leaves 

 and squares of the cotton goes to waste, or 

 even serves to attract injurious insects, among 

 them the boll worm moths." 



" The discovery of the ant supplies a prac- 

 tical reason for the existence of the nectaries 

 hitherto quite unsuspected, and it suggests the 

 further possibility that the weevil and the ant 

 may have been factors in the evolution of the 

 cotton plant, for the weevil is not knovm to 

 feed on any plant except cotton." Was the 

 kelep then first attracted to the cotton on 

 account of the nectar or by its appetite for 

 the weevil? That the nectar of the cotton 

 otherwise goes to waste is a surprising state- 

 ment, inasmuch as a very large proportion of 

 the honey stored by honey bees throughout the 

 southern states is secured from cotton, as is 

 well known to all practical bee keepers. Fur- 

 thermore, the writer was under the impression 

 that American cotton was originally of 

 oriental origin. If so, how could the kelep 

 and boll weevil have been a factor in the evo- 

 lution of the cotton plant in the orient where 

 they are not known to occur? 



It would seem to the writer that consider- 

 ably more evidence is necessary to establish 

 such a theory, and that a more intimate 

 knowledge of the cotton plant and the insects 



