January 21, 1887.] 



SCIENCE. 



59 



writers on science in Germany is as great as that of 

 any other nation. I believe the following names, to 

 which scores of others could be added, will bear out 

 my statement: Georg Forster (the companion of 

 Cook), A. von Humboldt, Liebig, Moleschott, Carl 

 Vogt, Schleiden, Peschel, Helmholtz, Otto Ule (of 

 Halle), Eossmaessler, Haeekel, Preyer, etc. Who is 

 to be the judge as to a good German style, those 

 who know the language as foreigners, or those who 

 know it as natives ? What would become of scientific 

 criticism, if people may ridicule with impunity what- 

 ever differs from the standard to which they are ac- 

 customed? How does 'M.' suppose a rather long 

 and involved English sentence, though correctly 

 formed and considered elegant, sounds to a German 

 who translates it literally? In a recent issue of 

 Science (Jan. 7) another German sentence is quoted ; 

 and this, too, is neither a bad nor an obscure one, 

 although it is not claimed that an advertisement — 

 and such the sentence is — may be taken as a model 

 of a lucid and graceful style. The number of poor 

 writers in German is not great, in spite of all that 

 has been written on the subject. The number of 

 finished writers of peculiar excellence is probably 

 as great in Germany as in France, England, or the 

 United States. C. A. Eggeet. 



Iowa City, lo., Jan. 7. 



The West Indian seal. 



Since the publication of my article on this species 

 in the last number of Science (ix. 35), Mr. F. W. 

 True of the U. S. national museum has kindly called 

 my attention to a paper on this subject by himself 

 and Mr. F. A. Lucas, in the Smithsonian report for 

 1884 (part ii. pp. 331-335, plates i.-iii.), recently 

 distributed, which I had not at that time seen. In this 

 paper the species is positively referred to the genus 

 Monachus, and the cranial characters are described 

 and figured. The specimen forming the basis of this 

 paper is the one presented to the U. S. national mu- 

 seum by Professor Poey, as stated in Science, iii. 

 752. This was a skin, containing the skull, of the 

 specimen taken near Havana in 1883. The specimen 

 is described as " a female, . . . apparently adult, 

 though not aged." The description of the size and 

 color, and the figures of the skull, however, show it 

 to have been quite young, not more than two-thirds 

 grown, and probably in its second year, the skull- 

 sutures being still open, while in the adult, as in other 

 seals, those of the cranium proper are wholly ob- 

 literated. 



On the assumption that their specimen was adult, 

 Messrs. True and Lucas believe that " the West In- 

 dian seal must be considerably smaller than M. albi- 

 venter" of the Mediterranean. The specimens ob- 

 tained by Mr. Ward show that there is practically no 

 difference in size or color between specimens of cor- 

 responding ages of the two species of subtropical seals. 

 Many of the discrepancies in the proportions of the 

 skull in the two forms, alluded to by True and Lucas, 

 are clearly due, in large part at least, to the immatur- 

 ity of their specimen of M. tropicalis. My largest 

 male skulls even slightly exceed the measurements 

 given by Cuvier for the Mediterranean species. I 

 find the length of my adult male skeleton, measured 

 along the curvature of its axis, to be seven and a half 

 feet ; measured in a straight line, seven and one-tenth 

 feet, or 85 inches. The length of the stuffed skin of 

 the Havana specimen, as given by True and Lucas, 



is only 53 inches. In view, however, of the vsddely 

 separated habitats of the two fonns, there is every 

 probability of their specific distinctness, and ade- 

 quate material doubtless would reveal numerous minor 

 structural differences. 



As compared with other species of the family Pho- 

 cidae, the skeleton of M. tropicalis presents notable 

 peculiarities, particularly in the form of the scapula, 

 the pelvis, the proportions of the limb-bones, etc., 

 as well as in the low position of the mandibular con- 

 dyle, referred to by True and Lucas. The scapula, 

 for example, is remarkably short and broad, the 

 length to the breadth being as 16 to 28, both the ante- 

 rior and posterior borders being greatly developed. 

 The acromion process is well marked ; but the spine 

 is low and short, forming little more than a well- 

 marked ridge, in comparison with its usual develop- 

 ment in other phocids. The pelvis is remarkably 

 short and broad : the thyroid foramina are fully haU 

 as broad as long. The femtir is very short and 

 thick, not longer than in Phoca vitulina, notwith- 

 standing the much greater size of the animal, the 

 same being true likewise of the pelvis. Through- 

 out the skeleton the proportion of parts is rather 

 exceptional, the fore-limbs being much more 

 developed, relatively to the hind-limbs, than in the 

 seals generally. As I stated in 1870 {Bull. mus. comp. 

 zool., ii. No. 1, p. 30), Monachus much more nearly 

 approaches the Otariidae than does any other genus 

 of the Phocidae, through its skeletal proportions and 

 peculiarities. The animal is in form very robust. 

 The bones are thick and heavy, with the apophyses 

 of the vertebrae strongly developed. Further details, 

 however, must await the appearance of my illus- 

 trated memoir on this species, now in preparation for 

 early publication in the Bulletin of the American 

 museum of natural history. 



To Messrs. True and Lucas is due the credit of first 

 making known, in their paper above cited, the cranial 

 characters of the West Indian seal, and of confirm- 

 ing its reference to the genus Monachus ; and I much 

 regret not having seen their valuable contribution 

 when I penned my former notice of the species. 

 While the 'Report' containing their paper bears date 

 ' 1885,' it appears not to have been generally distrib- 

 uted till some time in December, 1886. 



J. A. Allen. 

 New York, Jan. 14. 



On hybrid dogs. 



If my memory serves me correctly, I think it was 

 Dr. Coues who pointed out the fact somewhere, in 

 one of his works, that he had personally known of 

 cases of fertile crosses having taken place between 

 the coyote (Canis latrans) and that species of 

 semi-domesticated dog found with nearly all the 

 Indian tribes of this country. His instances were 

 cited, however, I believe, for the Sioux camps of the 

 Indian agencies of certain parts of Dakota. 



Now, a year ago there came under my observation 

 here an interesting case of this kind, the occurrence 

 having taken place at Zuni, in south-western New 

 Mexico. Zunian Indians have many varieties of 

 wolfish-looking dogs at their pueblo, while coyotes 

 are always found prowling about on the surrounding 

 prairies. Such circumstances as these, granting that 

 these animals will cross, are as favorable as any we 

 could imagine ; for the pueblo, with the ends of its 

 streets leading in the majority of instances directly 

 out upon the prairie, affords the opportunity, not 



