JANUARY 18, 1884.] 
nal investigations. Even meteorologists out- 
side the office, or employed by it as consulting 
specialists, may find it to their advantage to 
avail themselves of this opportunity for publi- 
eation. Considering the great future evidently 
in store for meteorology, it is not surprising 
that Professor Abbe is, as we understand, dili- 
gently inquiring for those who are willing to 
come to his assistance in the effort to develop 
a systematic, deductive, and exact science of 
meteorology. We commend this subject to 
those whose studies have taken this direction. 
There are needed the investigator, the teacher, 
and the expert consulting-meteorologist, pre- 
cisely as in other branches of science. 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 
*,* Correspondents are requested to beas briefas possible. The 
writer’s name is in all cases required as proof of good faith. 
Chemical geology. 
IT appears to me, that in his interesting communi- 
cation in the number of Science for Dec. 28, Pro- 
fessor Winchell has fallen into an error, which, while 
diminishing by more than one-eighth his estimate of 
the secular increase of the earth’s mass, is yet more 
serious from the stand-point of chemical geology. In 
determining the amount of carbon dioxide abstracted 
from the atmosphere and fixed in the earth’s crust, 
he estimates, first, that represented by the carbonate 
rocks (limestone, dolomite, etc.), and, second, that re- 
quired for the decomposition of an assumed thick- 
ness of decomposable silicate rocks; and both these 
amounts are included in his grand total. But this 
is certainly bad book-keeping, for a portion of the 
carbon dioxide is counted twice. The decay of the 
silicate rocks is a necessary antecedent of the forma- 
tion of the carbonate rocks; and the carbon dioxide 
of the latter is precisely the same as that which has 
previously decomposed the former. In general terms, 
this grandest of all chemical processes proceeds as 
follows: the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere de- 
composes the felspars, hornblende, augite, micas, etc., 
of the silicate rocks, leaving the alumina and iron 
with the silica as a more or less ferruginous kaoline, 
and forming carbonates of the alkalies and alkaline 
earths, which are carried away in solution, and ul- 
timately reach the sea, where the latter are deposited 
as limestone and dolomite, and the former react with 
the calcium and magnesium chlorides of the sea- 
water, producing alkaline chlorides (chiefly common 
salt) and more limestone aud dolomite. As Dr. 
Hunt has so clearly shown, the kaoline on the land, 
and salt in the sea, are merely incidental results of 
the fixation of the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere 
in the carbonate rocks. W. O. CRosBy. 
Osteology of the cormorant. 
Dr. Shufeldt’s letter in Science (ii. 822) calls for 
a few remarks. In relation to his first statement, 
that ‘the occipital style of the cormorant is not an 
ossification in tle tendon of any muscle’ of the neck, 
Selenka wrote as follows: ‘“‘ Eigenthiimlich ist dem 
Carbo cormoranus und C. graculus, aber auch nur 
SCIENCE. 
a9 
diesen beiden, ein an dem occip. superius durch band- 
masse verbundener, dreieckig pyramideiformiger, 
nach hinten gerichteter knochen, welcher die atsatz- 
flache der den kopf bewegenden muskeln soz. vergrés- 
sert; er ist ein sehnenknochen und gehort nicht zum 
schadel ’’ (Thierreichs, 19). In view of such emi- 
nent authority, it would seem that something more 
than simple denial is required to upset a_ state- 
ment accepted by anatomists for many years. It is 
worthy of note that Dr. Shufeldt does not mention 
the nature of the bone in his article, and that, in 
ignoring the point to which I took exception, he 
virtually acknowledges his mistake. It is difficult 
to understand how one who does not know the posi- 
tion of a bone is qualified to expound its nature; and 
in all cases it is wise, if we would convince, to give 
reasons for dissent from authorities. 
As to his second statement, that my ideas of the 
morphology of the rotular process are wrong, I would 
simply remark that the ideas referred to are not mine, 
but those of Nitzsch, of Meckel, of Tiedemann, of 
Owen, of Selenka, and of Mivart, and suggest that 
it would be appropriate to read such eminent author- 
ities before disposing of them with an empirical de- 
nial. Dr. Shufeldt’s paper clearly intimates that the 
rotular process of the divers is the homologue of the 
patella in other birds. The coexistence of the two 
disproves this by reductio ad absurdum. I would 
invite Dr. Shufeldt to quote the passage to which ~ 
he refers when citing Owen as considering any pro- 
cess of the tibia as the analogue of the patella. 
Lastly, Dr. Shufeldt states ‘‘ that, furthermore, I 
find myself misquoted more than once.’’ I would 
remind Dr. Shufeldt that I quoted him but once; and 
of the accuracy of this, any one may satisfy himself 
by referring to Science, ii. 642, 2d column, line 19. 
J. AMORY JEFFRIES. 
Electric time-signals. 
Your correspondent who describes his method of 
making electrical signals in a recent number of 
Science (ii. 823) can greatly simplify and thereby 
improve his arrangement by inserting within the 
clock a couple of thin metallic springs with platinum 
contacts, the circuit being completed by the pressure 
of the hammer on the ‘ outward stroke.’ The writer 
has had such an attachment to an ordinary ‘ pro- 
gramme clock’ in constant use for about ten years, 
as is doubtless the case with many others who have 
had occasion to distribute time. The signals are 
transmitted to several buildings, in one of which an 
‘electric gong is struck, and in others a number of 
‘vibrating’ bells are rung. 
Mercury contacts are generally troublesome. The 
arrangement described seems unnecessarily com- 
plicated: besides, it is difficult to see the necessity for 
insulating the clock ‘on a square of plate glass.’ 
M. 
Columbus, O. 
Capitalization of names of formations. 
The use of capitals is a literary rather than a sci- 
entific matter; but geologists, nevertheless, suffer as 
a class from the existing confusion in regard to the 
names of formations. 
Authors who are consistent with themselves in this 
matter fall into three classes. Those of the first class 
speak of the Potsdam, and of the Carboniferous, but 
of potsdam strata and carboniferous strata. In so 
doing they class the names of formations as proper 
nouns, but refuse to recognize proper adjectives. This 
practice employs a German idiom not otherwise coun- 
tenanced in our language: we do not say german 
