1893.] Editorials. 887 
reform. Nearly all the names of towns with which we are familiar in 
American geography have now been duplicated, generally several 
times. New cases appear in the papers continually. We recently 
noticed a half dozen or more stations on a branch of the Santa Fe R, 
R. system, whose names have been taken in toto from the time-table of 
the Pennsylvania R. R., west of Philadelphia. Many or all of these 
places are or will be post-offices, As the Santa Fe system is controlled 
in Boston we wonder at this piece of plagiarism (!), for Boston has 
never been noted for lack of originality. If this is possible from Bos- 
ton, the stupidity of the rest of the country in the matter of names is 
easily understood! Nevertheless, Philadelphians (ignoring Kensington 
and Southwark), may protest in the names of Passyunk, Manayunk 
and Moyamensing, against such incapacity. There can be only 
one Chicago, one New York, one Philadelphia, ete., and those 
communities that duplicate these names simply efface themselves, as 
the French say. There is nothing easier than to find or invent new 
names, hence it is incomprehensible why American people should 
wish to call their homes Paris, Mexico or Berlin. In any case, if 
geography is to be taught in our public schools, or letters reach 
their destination, this maze of confusion must be corrected. 
—TueE scheme of Mr. J. C. Bay to publish a yearly bibliography of 
American botany deserves every encouragement. He proposes an 
absolutely complete list of all papers upon American botany, accom- 
panied by short abstracts of each, the whole to be published six 
months after the close of the year. We understand that a publisher 
has been found who is willing to undertake the publication, but the 
prompt issue of the volumes will doubtless prove a matter of some dif- 
ficulty. Thus, of Just’s Botanical * Jahresbericht," the volume for 
1890 is completed in 1893, the same is true for the Zoological summary 
of the * Archiv. für Naturgesechihte," while the delay in the appear- 
ance of the English “ Zoological Record” and the Naples Jahresber- 
icht, though not quite so bad, is very aggravating to those who desire 
to keep fully abreast with the times. 
—Tue question is often asked, Why do the American zoologists so 
universally neglect the A merican Association for the Advancement of 
Science? For many years scarcely an American publishing zoologist 
has been present at the meeting while the few papers on zoological sub- 
jects are in striking contrast to the interest shown in the sister science 
of botany. The reasons for this state of affairs are not readily stated. 
