!52 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. X. No. 250 



Our general system is not only wasteful, and based on false econ- 

 omy, but the quality of milk is not up to a proper standard. As 

 a matter of fact, the milk supplied to New York City is inferior 

 (much of it is unwholesome, and unfit for use) to that of any city in 

 Europe. 



The question of still-fed milk is of little moment as compared to 

 milk from so much greater quantity of other and more injurious feed, 

 now in general use, and as compared to the sanitary conditions and 

 treatment of the cows, stables, and milk, and the water the cows 

 consume, — one of the most important elements in dairying. There 

 is not one well in a hundred that furnishes pure water. 



Brewers' and glucose grains are shipped into the country by the 

 millions of bushels annually. Brewers' grains are good feed for 

 milch-cows if fed the day they are produced. Glucose grains, with 

 the sulphuric-acid treatment necessary in the factory, are injurious 

 to both cow and milk. These grains are sent into the country wet 

 and hot, fermenting, souring, and spoiling as they go. So the farm- 

 ers' cows, with every shipment, have feed in a state of fermentation, 

 often rotten, and fit only for the dung-hill. Distillers' slops, as fed, 

 ha\'e undergone fermentation, while the grains are fed while fer- 

 menting, — a strong point in favor of slops. B. M. W. 



New York, Nov. 2. 



Microscopic Sections of Corals. 



In Science, No. 24S, Mr. A. F. Foerste takes exceptions to a note 

 of mine in No. 244, and contends that the internal features of Lower 

 Silurian monticuliporoids are not only of value in classification, but 

 that they are the ones most worthy of study, and of almost sole 

 use. I ask space for a brief reply. 



I have, in the first part of a paper on monticuliporoids, given 

 quotations and references showing that even by the new method of 

 work in the corals it is not always possible to separate either species 

 or genera. To state that this method gives ' solidity ' to classi- 

 fication, and allows "the species to fall into easily recognized 

 groups," is, I believe, a mistake. Dr. Nicholson, for example, in 

 speaking of two genera, says ( Tabulate Corah, p. 99), " There is, 

 indeed, no feature in the way of internal construction which could 

 be brought forward as separating Striatopora from Pachypora ; 

 -and in distinguishing these two types we have to fall back upon a 

 well-marked external character." The distinctions between Deka- 

 yia and Monticulipora are external, and not internal. Between 

 species there is even less difference. One of Mr. Ulrich's species, 

 for instance, is almost the exact counterpart of another : so here, 

 again, the separation is made on external features. 



My examination and study of the descriptions of the genera 

 made by Mr. Ulrich has led me to discard all of them. The fea- 

 tures upon which they are based are so few, so trivial, and so in- 

 constant, that it becomes an utter impossibility to separate them 

 with any certainty. I have not had the opportunity of seeing 

 Mr. Ulrich's latest ideas in regard to the subject upon which he 

 has written so much, so that I cannot tell how he may have modi- 

 fied or changed his conclusions. It is my belief, however, that it is 

 impossible for one who studies the descriptions of genera and 

 species as given by Mr. Ulrich to state positively, after he has ex- 

 amined a specimen macroscopically and microscopically, that he 

 has a desired genus or species in hand. 



Mr. Foerste lays stress upon the form of the cells as seen in tan- 

 gential section. The same features are to be seen on the exterior, 

 and are free from errors likely to result from sections made at a 

 slightly different angle from the one intended. " Elevated patches 

 of cells " cannot be recognized in internal sections in very many 

 cases, as Mr. Foerste states is the case ; for these are often of the 

 same size and shape as surrounding cells. It were useless to deny 

 the difficulty of finding specimens suitable for description. In many 

 cases it were best had they not been described at all. 



Finally, in relation to the difficulty of studying microscopic char- 

 acters, I have but this to say : that it is not the difficulty itself or 

 alone, but the unreliability of the work. I would be the last one to 

 discard a method of work simply because it was difficult. But 

 when it becomes difficult (and there can be no denying this, in 

 spite of the assertion to the contrary), tedious, and uncertain, and 

 when finally we are compelled to fall back upon external features 

 because the internal ones fail, I contend that their use for ordinary 



practical work in the field or in the study is of little or no value. I 

 can quote no higher authority than Mr. Archibald Geikie {Texi- 

 Book of Geology, pp. 85-88, where elaborate directions are given for 

 making rock sections ; Professor Prestwich also considers it " an 

 expensive and tedious process," Geology, i. p. 43) as to the tedi- 

 ousness of the process, nor a better one than Dr. Nicholson, as to 

 the uncertainty of the results {Palcaosoic Tabulate Corals, and The 

 Genus Monfz'culzpora). In conclusion, I can only refer to the 

 paper on the subject by Mr. U. P. James and myself, for the full 

 expression of my views, and I shall be happy to furnish a copy of 

 the paper to any of those desirous of seeing these views in full for 

 their own satisfaction. 



Joseph F. James. 



Miami University, Oxford, O., Nov. 7. 



Indian Names. 



The publication of the ' Early Map of the Far West,' in your last 

 issue {Science, x. No. 248) gives occasion to draw attention to the 

 changes in pronunciation which have been brought about by peda- 

 gogic conceit. ' Arkansaw ' or ' Arcansaw,' of Lewis's map, gives 

 the old pronunciation. ' Chipaway ' of Lewis's map gives the true 

 pronunciation of ' Chippewa.' ' Ojibwa ' is the same word, and is 

 pronounced ' Ojibway.' The pronunciation of ' Kansas ' has not 

 changed. It is given as ' Kanzas ' in Lewis's map, and ' Canzes ' in 

 the map of Louisiana by De L'Isle, eighteenth century. ' Iowa ' has 

 suffered much from the pedagogues. The polite pronunciation now 

 is ' I-o-wah,' with the accent on the first or second syllable. The 

 old pronunciation was ' I-o-way,' accent on the last syllable. In 

 Lewis's map the word is found as ' Ayauwais ; ' in De L'Isle's 

 map, as ' Aiaouez ' or ' Yoways.' ' Euisconsin ' (Wisconsin) has 

 fortunately remained unchanged; so has ' Pani,' which we now 

 spell ' Pawnee.' 



I once met an Indian who called himself a ' Taw-wah,' accent on 

 first syllable. Unable to recall a tribe of such name, I had him re- 

 peat the word several times, and at length discovered an almost 

 silent vowel before the T. It is Ottawa. I am not sure, however, 

 whether this man pronounced his tribal name correctly, for he had 

 long lived among the whites, and had gone to school. I find that 

 tribe's name in Jeffery's map of Louisiana and Canada, 1762, given 

 as ' Outawais,' where the final syllable is ' way.' 



Joseph D. Wilson. 



Chicago, Nov. 8. 



The Temperature Sense. 



It may be interesting to those who have been acquainted with 

 the experiments of Goldscheider, and of Dr. Donaldson and Prof. G. 

 Stanley Hall in Johns Hopkins University, to prove the existence of 

 a separate system of nerves for temperature, to know that the dis- 

 covery was anticipated by Sir. WiUiam Hamilton. His observations 

 of psychological phenomena seem to have been nearly as extensive 

 as his philosophic reading. In his edition of Thomas Reid's works 

 (vol. ii. p. 875), after commenting on a singular and exceptional 

 case of paralysis, in which sensations of touch did not seem to be 

 localized, he takes the occasion to hazard the conjecture, based 

 upon observations of his own, that there is a distinct set of nerves 

 for sensation of temperature. His language is, — 



" I may notice also another problem, the solution of which ought 

 to engage the attention of those who have the means of observation 

 in their power. Is the sensation of heat dependent upon a peculiar 

 set of nerves ? This to me seems probable, (i) because certain 

 sentient parts of the body are insensible to this feeling, and (2) be- 

 cause I have met with cases recorded, in which, while sensibility in 

 general was abolished, the sensibility to heat remained apparently 

 undiminished." J. H. Hyslop. 



Baltimore, Md., Nov. 10. 



Ansvyers. 



16. Pennsylvania Pot-Holes. — Described in Report Z, 

 Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, p. 11 1, footnote, by Professor 

 Lesley; also in the Scranton Republican of Nov. 4, 1887. 



John C. Branner. 



Little Rock, Ark., Nov. 7. 



