CORRESPONDENCE. 
Editor of the American Naturalist. 
Sir: — I have only recently seen in the American Naturalist 
for July-August the review of a revision of Professor Orton's Com- 
parative Zoölogy which I prepared and which was issued last year by 
the American Book Company. As the reviewer makes certain very 
erroneous implications I am led to send this communication with the 
request that you permit it to appear in the Naturalist. 
About ten years ago at the request of Mrs. Orton I made a 
revision of Professor Orton's Comparative Zoölogy which was pub- 
lished by Harper and Brothers. In this edition it was impracticable 
to reset the book, and all new matter, except verbal changes, was 
placed in an appendix. This edition, I understand, is still in use in 
some schools and is known as Orton's Comparative Zoölogy, revised 
by myself. 
More recently, at the request of the American Book Company and 
with the cordial approval of Mrs. Orton, I prepared the edition 
which is the subject of the review mentioned. This revision was 
undertaken largely for the purpose of meeting the wishes of certain 
schools that desired to continue using Professor Orton's book but felt 
the necessity of introducing practical work, of following a more 
modern system of classification, and of having a more logical 
arrangement of the text than the earlier edition afforded. When 
deciding upon the title for the new revision the publishers contended 
that it must be so worded as to avoid the confusion which would 
inevitably arise in the schools and inthe trade if the two editions 
bore the same title, it being their intention to continue the publica- 
tion of the earlier revision. For this reason the name was changed 
to General Zoölogy, Practical, Systematic, and Comparative, Being 
a Revision and Re-arrangement of Orton’s Comparative Zoölogy, a 
title which fully describes the character of the book. From the 
letters which passed between the publishers and myself regarding 
the title, I quote from one concerning a form of title-page which was 
submitted to me but which I rejected because it did not express fully 
enough the fact that the present edition claims to be nothing more 
than a revision. “As to having my name standing practically alone 
57 
> 
