1072 The American Naturalist. [December, 
EDITORIALS. 
—Dvrine the past few years several institutions of higher 
education in the United States have begun the publication of 
the results of work done in their laboratories and seminars. Some 
regard this new departure with favor, while in the opinion of 
others it isa matter of regret. Of the aspects as related to Natural 
History alone we need to speak. The arguments against such publi- 
cations are weighty. The literature on the subject is enormous; no less 
than 20,000 pages are required to contain the annual contributions of 
the world to zoology alone; and every new periodical adds just so 
much to the difficulty of keeping en rapport with the subject. Again 
with the multiplicity of periodicals there is a corresponding deteriora- 
tion on the part of some in the quality of the: matter published. 
With fewer chances for appearing in print the law of natural selection 
would weed out many a mediocre production. 
On the other hand, these new journals have their strong points. 
America is lacking i in facilities for the prompt publieation of results. 
All of our publishing scientific societies are overwhelmed with papers, 
while our independent journals devoted to research are utterly inade- 
quate to present more than a fraction of the papers of the better class. 
Combination between institutions to support new journals of the bet- 
ter class is apparently out of the question, while the persons who, like 
Professor Whitman and Mr. Allis, are willing to pay the deficit of a 
journal from their own pockets are lamentably few. To conduct 
investigations with no chance for the publication of the results 
obtained is discouraging. But since it is only by research that we 
can ever advance, every aid or encouragement to investigation should 
be welcomed. We can only hope that the editors of these new jour- 
nals will exercise due critical care and that they will see to it that 
every paper peii is an actual contribution to knowledge. 
. The bill recently introduced into the < Houi of Representatives by 
000 dollars for the extermina- 
tion of the Gypsy ‘Moth i in Massachusetts seems to us pernicious. It 
is, if voted, sure to prove a precedent for further expenditures for the 
same purpose, for an unlimited term of years. The extermination 
of this pest is far from an easy task and for several years the State of 
: Massachusetts has been sending good money after bad in its attempt . 
