> 
JANUARY 25, 1884.] 
civilian experts.’’— To answer these points in order, 
I will say, first as a matter of history, that the ‘ plan’ 
of the coast-survey was compiled over forty years 
since by a mixed board composed in part of navy 
officers. This plan was legalized by Congress in 
1848-44, and has been mainly in force ever since ; 
though some modifications have necessarily been 
made by the judgment and experience of the emi- 
nent men who have held the offices of superintendent 
and principal assistants. By the plan referred to, it 
was made the legitimate duty of officers and men of 
‘the navy to execute the hydrographic part of the 
work; and to them has ever since been assigned the 
bulk of that work, except during the few years when 
the civil war and the subsequent scarcity of officers 
made it impossible to do so. That period (i.e., from 
1861 to 1871) developed a good many civilian hydrog- 
raphers who have no superiors in the world, but 
nearly all of these resumed their more legitimate 
work upon the return of navy officers to the survey. 
The methods of hydrography are the growth of hun- 
dreds of years, and have been contributed to by the 
seamen of all maritime nations; and, while the in- 
ventors of a good many instruments and special 
methods are known, it would be exceedingly difficult 
to trace the system to its source. The ‘tricks of the 
trade,’ so to speak, have been handed down from one 
to another with gradual improvement, —as a rule, 
too slow to give any definite point from which that 
improvement can be shown, though during the forty 
years of its existence the coast-survey has vastly im- 
proved the character of its work; but probably the 
improvement in its means (i.e., the introduction of 
steam-propelling power, etc.) deserves a good deal of 
the credit for improved methods. While civilians 
have had a share in the development, it is a long way 
from the fact, to ascribe all to them, as itis to assume 
that hydrography is a work which does not require 
skill, judgment, and care. Those who think the last 
have never worked in intricate waters. The officers 
engaged upon the coast-survey have been so assigned 
because it was a part of their regular duty, and not 
because ‘superfluous.’ Having had for five years the 
privilege of nominating the officers to be employed 
upon the coast-survey, I can speak with some authori- 
ty. Officers were chosen strictly for their qualifica- 
tions; and often, had it not been for the great interest 
taken in the coast-survey by the successive chiefs of 
the bureau of navigation, the officers selected would 
not have been spared from other duties. That all 
work of the coast-survey is supervised by the super- 
intendent, an expert of high order, is an undoubted 
fact; but his instructions to hydrographers, unless he 
has some special object in view, simply assign geo- 
graphical limits, but do not prescribe methods, a 
general printed manual covering all that is required 
in the latter. The work, after completion, has of 
course to pass the rigid scrutiny of the superintend- 
ent; but the same is the case with all other work. 
To this extent the work of navy officers may be said 
to be ‘ supervised by civilian experts,’ but no farther. 
In 1873 several navy officers, who without previous 
experience were ordered to the coast-survey, placed 
themselves for a short time under the instructions of 
civil assistants, who had been doing their work for 
some years; and all of them freely and gratefully ac- 
knowledge the assistance they received. I am free 
to acknowledge obligations of a similar character,— of 
Many a point received from my valued civil associates 
during the Darien Canal expedition of 1870. Nauti- 
cal surveying has always been taught theoretically at 
the Naval academy; and as much practice as possible 
has generally, though not always, been given. Fur- 
SCIENCE. 87 
’ 
thermore, nautical surveying and navigation are very 
near cousins, so that all the instruction needed to 
make a navigator a surveyor is to give him what I 
have called the ‘tricks of the trade;’ and these are 
being handed down by officers as they have been by 
their predecessors. EDWARD P. LULL, 
Captain U.S. navy, late hydrographic inspector 
U.S. coast geodetic survey. 
[The plan of organization of the coast-survey and 
the plan of work of the survey are quite different 
things. It is the duty of the chief of the survey to 
arrange and supervise the latter. That the scope and 
character have been extended since its organization 
in accordance with the views of the chief is beyond 
question. While from the above letter it might be 
inferred that the nautical work of the coast-survey 
is confined to marine surveying in its older sense 
of locating rocks and shoals, and determining the 
boundaries of courses of the navigable waters by 
time-honored methods, yet from the publications of 
the coast-survey, and from other sources, we had 
gathered that the study of ocean physics, and of the 
conformation and character of the ocean bottom, 
together with the different forms of marine life, had 
formed, of recent years, an important part of the 
work of the survey, and that it was carried out in 
accordance with the plans of the chiefs of the survey, 
and by the methods devised and developed by them 
and by the two Agassizs, Pourtales, Thompson, 
Milne-Edwards, and many other eminent specialists, 
modified in minor details by the circumstances of 
each case. 
It is an error to suppose we regard the employ- 
ment of naval officers in this work unfavorably; for, 
on the contrary, we think it highly desirable that 
they should be employed in this routine work of col- 
lecting data and material for discussion and study by 
specialists; and their skill, judgment, and care, their 
knowledge of organization and discipline, and their 
close adherence to instructions, render them ex- 
tremely useful. It is wise, also, that, in the present 
reduced condition of the navy as to ships, and its 
overcrowded condition as to officers, the secretary 
should find employment for this superfluity in the 
coast-survey, the fish-commission, the geological 
survey, the national museum, as instructors in our 
colleges, and as assistants in special researches. Such 
employment cannot but result in benefit to the navy, 
and assist in the advancement of science. 
Yet we have still to be persuaded that it will pro- 
mote the efficiency or the economy of the scientific 
organizations of the government if they are trans- 
ferred from the supervision of the present expert 
civilian heads to that of the officers of the navy. | 
Italics for scientific names. 
I agree with the editorial remarks under this head- 
ing in Science, No. 49, that the proper mission of 
italics is for ‘emphasis, or as catch-words;’ and their 
use for scientific names of animals and plants is, 
it seems to me,—contrary to the opinion conveyed 
editorially, — of great practical utility, especially in 
indexing, or in searching the pages of an article or 
memoir for references to particular species that may 
be under treatment. Italicizing such words makes 
them ‘catch-words,’ and gives great facility in dis- 
covering incidental reference to species, the eye 
quickly catching the italicized name, and as quickly 
recognizing whether it is the one sought. Consider- 
ing scientific names as ‘a simple convenience,’ and 
as having no higher value, their use is so necessary as 
