SCIENCE. 



FKIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1884. 



COMMENT AND CRITICISM. 



The Kowak or Kuak River, to the explo- 

 ration of which attention has been recently 

 attracted, was first entered by Elsoii, of 

 Beechey's expedition, in 1826 ; the opening 

 being indicated on their rough sketch of Ho- 

 tharn Inlet. Its name and general character 

 were ascertained in 1849 by officers of the 

 Plover, who ascended it to the point where 

 large trees begin to maintain themselves. An 

 account of these investigations appeared in 

 the Parliamentary papers of 1855, and. was 

 republished in the Arctic papers of the Royal 

 geographical societ}* in 1875. Placed on the 

 map of north-western America by Petermann 

 in 1859, with its name, this river has appeared 

 in some shape or other on every good map of 

 Alaska issued since. We have referred to the 

 later observations of Jacobsen and Woolfe in 

 1882 (Science, iv. p. 474), and have since 

 learned that the river was ascended some 

 twent}"-five miles in 1874 by Capt. E. E. 

 Smith. In 1883 Lieut. Stoney was furnished 

 with the means for exploring the delta by the 

 U. S. revenue marine, represented by Capt. 

 Healy of the Corwin, who had for some time 

 contemplated an expedition for such a pur- 

 pose. 



The above facts being known to geographers, 

 it was a matter for surprise, when, after his re- 

 turn, the newspapers, apparently by authority, 

 claimed for Stoney the discovery of a new 

 river of prodigious extent, which, in accord- 

 ance with the unwritten law in such cases, he 

 as discoverer was entitled to name. This sup- 

 position by those better informed was ascribed 

 to imperfect charts ; and it was supposed that 

 the really important additions to geographical 

 knowledge, made in the course of this explo- 

 ration by Lieut. Stoney, entitled the hasty un- 



No. 98. — 1884. 



official and unfounded claims on his behalf, 

 so widely published, to the charity of silence. 

 During the past season the explorations pro- 

 jected by Capt. Healy have been carried out 

 by Lieut. Cantwell of the Revenue marine, not 

 the less energetically, perhaps, from the fact 

 that he was followed by a naval part}' in charge 

 of Lieut. Stone}'. Both parties have contrib- 

 uted largely to our knowledge of the hitherto 

 un surveyed river, and a comparison of the 

 results of both will probably give a chart ap- 

 proximating nearly to accuracy. Meanwhile 

 the western newspapers have published further 

 accounts of Stoney 's expedition, in which the 

 claims of last year are repeated, together with 

 others which ma} r probably not appear in the 

 official report when made. An abstract of 

 this newspaper article, by an editorial over- 

 sight, appeared in Science, No. 95, without 

 explanation or comment. We consider our- 

 selves within the bounds of moderation when 

 we say it is time that Lieut. Stoney protected 

 his own reputation by emphatically disavowing 

 claims on his behalf, which, by this time, he 

 can but know are without a foundation in 

 fact. 



Our naturalists must have recognized the 

 force of the remarks of Mr. P. L. Sclater 

 before the American ornithologists' union, 

 at its recent meeting, an account of which we 

 published a few weeks ago, regarding the 

 insufficient care taken of the valuable ornitho- 

 logical collections in this country. The same 

 thing could be said concerning the older col- 

 lections of insects forming so important a part 

 of the history of the science of entomology in 

 this countiy. It is a positive misfortune that 

 the cabinets of the early naturalists, such as 

 those of Say, Hentz, and Melsheimer, remained 

 in this countiy; for almost without exception the 

 specimens have been totally destroyed through 

 neglect. There is not to-da}- more than a sin- 

 gle museum in the country, where proper pro- 



