1897.] Scientifie News. 267 
Ross, J. L. Tilten and C. C. Bates to serves with officers as elective 
members of executive committee—HrRBERT OSBORN, Secretary. 
Botanical Seminar of the University of Nebraska.—Jan- 
uary 16.—At the regular monthly meeting. De Alton Saunders pres- 
ented a paper upon “ The Relations of the Laboulbeniacez to the Red 
Seaweeds,” illustrated by blackboard sketches of their structure. 
January 23.—This adjourned meeting was devoted to a Symposium 
upon “Systematic Mycology” led by Roscoe Pound, who spoke first 
upon “The Relation of Morphology to Classification” and then upon 
“Schroeter’s Arrangement considered as a Modification of the Brefeld- 
ian Arrangement.” Hs was followed by Dr. Bessey on “ The Natural 
Arrangement of the Fungi,” and F. E. Clements on “Suggestions for 
a Re-arrangement of the Higher Fungi.” 
SCIENTIFIC NEWS. 
A Prorest.—I am sure that I voice the opinions of a large number 
of naturalists when I protest against a tendency very strong in some 
localities to rename things already well named. It would even appear 
to an outsider that these persons must think that by this introduction of 
new names they were greatly advancing science. To me it seems that 
they must be clogs to the wheels of progress. One must needs know a 
double or even a triple nomenclature to read their papers intelligently, 
and this learning of these new names is, as Col. Lyman has expressed it, 
“like saw-dust swallowing, neither palatable nor nutritious.” 
As an example of what I mean I may cite the article on “ Formal ” 
in the January number of THE AMERICAN NaturRALIst. Weare told 
there that “ the term formaldehyde is a cumbersome one” and “ formal ” 
is suggested as a substitute. Shall, therefore, every cumbersome name 
be discarded? Do not the constituent parts of the name mean some- 
thing? - Is not the name of the sea-urchin of northern New England— 
Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis—cumbersome? Must we, therefore, 
change it ? 
If we must change the names of these substances, of these things, be- 
cause of their sesquipedalian names, let us take some pains with the 
substitutes proposed. Formal for formaldehyde is unfortunate. Formal- 
dehyde has the formula H-CHO. By the rules of chemical nomen- 
clature the term “ formal” would mean a compound like acetal, one 
which would have the formula H-CH-(OE), and hence the endeavor 
to get rid of a cumbersone term introduces a worse confusion. It is, 
to quote Waterhouse Hawkins’ pun, bewildering. 
—A COMPARATIVE ANATOMIST. 
