me NG. 
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1884. 
COMMENT AND CRITICISM. 
SOMETHING was said in these columns re- 
cently about the shortcomings of geography- 
teaching in the lower schools. ‘The same 
complaints hold in regard to elementary sci- 
ence teaching in general. The wave of enthusi- 
asm for teaching science in primary and middle 
schools, which swept the country a few years 
ago, has not brought us as much nearer the 
millennium as was at first fondly anticipated ; 
but it has left many of us wiser, if not sadder. 
There was at first a general but strange mis- 
. conception of what ought to be taught, and 
how the teaching was to be done. <A _ poor 
workman with bad tools, which he does not 
know how to use, is hardly likely to turn out 
a finished product. One distinguishes genu- 
ine metal by its ring. only after he has heard 
it many times; and a teacher who knows little 
or nothing of any department of science is 
easily caught by the tone of a text-book which 
is often little better than a base alloy. ‘ Sci- 
ence made easy’ finds its way into the school- 
room to the temporary delight of both teacher 
and pupil, but to the lasting benefit of neither. 
Have the scientific men of this country done 
their full duty in this matter? It is a ‘perti- 
nent question, and it cannot be answered in 
the affirmative. ‘Two forces are here to be 
dealt with, —the teachers and the text-books. 
Concerning the latter, it will be remembered 
BY many that something akin to a sensation 
was produced, at the Minneapolis meeting of 
thee American association for the advancement 
of) science, by Professor Rowland’s vigorous 
depnunciation of American science text-books. 
is resolution was doubtless too sweeping in 
s character,—more so, in fact, than was 
freally intended by its author; but it cannot be 
enied that it contained a large measure of 
No. 56.— 1884. 
wholesome truth, however unpalatable it might 
have been. But can Professor Rowland and 
others, whose names will occur to the reader, 
hold themselves wholly free from responsibility 
in the premises? It is not unreasonable to 
assert that the preparation of text-books, 
including those that are elementary in their 
character, ought to be undertaken by special- 
ists; and it is gratifying to know that many 
eminent American scholars have not shrunk 
from their duty in this respect. A few years 
ago, in a review of an’ elementary treatise on 
physics, Clerk Maxwell remarked that there 
seems to be ‘‘ some opposition between accurate 
statements and school-teaching, which, if not 
a fundamental necessity, is at least a univer- 
sally existing phenomenon in the present order 
of things.’’ Nowhere is the hand of a master 
more needed than in the making of an ele- 
mentary text-book. “Science can be ‘ made 
easy’ by being made clear and accurate; and 
such elementary treatises as those prepared by 
Maxwell and Balfour Stewart show how well 
the real scholar can do this. It can hardly be 
done by any one else. 
Tue recent deliberations of the committees 
of the American ornithologists’ union, upon the 
rules of zodlogical nomenclature, will, when 
published, be of great interest to zodlogists 
working in other classes. The day is not far 
distant when the nomenclature of American 
zoology, particularly in its vertebrate division, 
will be reduced to a uniformity based upon con- 
sistent interpretation of the law of priority. 
American zoologists are now waiting with much 
curiosity to see what their fellow-workers in 
Europe are going to do in the matter, and 
whether it be possible that they will cling to 
the illogical and inconsistent usages now prey- 
alent among them. At present the names 
sanctioned by the great authorities, like Cu- 
vier, appear to be regarded as sacred and im- 
mutable. In a recent official report upon the 
