March 17, 1905.] 



SCIENCE. 



433 



and zoological nonienclature, and that tlie 

 use of a generic name in the one kingdom 

 did not debar its use in the other. The dif- 

 ferent branches of zoology have now become 

 so extended and specialized that the same rule 

 of divorce might well be extended to the dif- 

 ferent branches of zoology. Little, if any, con- 

 fusion coiild arise to ornithologists, or mam- 

 malogists, or ichthyologists, if a bird name, 

 a mammal name, or a fish name should have 

 currency for a genus of insects, or mollusks, 

 or crustaceans, or echinoderms, or in each of 

 these branches. If it could be agreed — and 

 I am aware of no opposition — that the same 

 generic name may hold good in different 

 branches of the animal kingdom, but must not 

 be used twice in the same branch (as in 

 vertebrates, for example), it would result in 

 the restoration of not a few familiar names 

 that have had to give way under the animal 

 kingdom priority rule, and lessen, if not quite 

 do away with the present incipient call for an 

 impracticable ' one-letier rule.' 



5. The Authority for Names. — It is diffi- 

 cult to see the reason for Canon XXIX., which 

 appears not to be published in full in The 

 Condor. It is contrary to current usage and 

 to other modern codes, that the authority for 

 a name, given in manuscript on a museum 

 label, is to be cited as the proper authority 

 for such names when published by another 

 author, who supplies the description and as- 

 sumes the responsibility for the species. This 

 canon says : " If a writer ascribes one of his 

 species to some one else, we must take his 

 word for it. Thus the manuscript species of 

 Kuhl and Van Hasselt in the Museum of 

 Leyden, although printed by Cuvier and 

 Valenciennes, should be ascribed to Kuhl and 

 Van Hasselt." This is not only a confusion of 

 responsibility, but is bibliographically mis- 

 leading, tending to throw the investigator off 

 the track in looking for the original descrip- 

 tion of the species. Unless the publishing 

 author endorses the supposed new species, he 

 simply ignores the manuscript name and takes 

 the responsibility for its suppression, just as 

 in the other case he takes the responsibility 

 for its publication and supplies the necessary 

 description. If the author of a manuscript 



name supplies a description to accompany it, 

 which only rarely happens, and the publishing 

 author uses it as inedited manuscript, then 

 the author of the name is also the author of 

 the description and is to be cited as the au- 

 thority for the species. In the other case, the 

 name should be cited, in synonyny, as Cuvier 

 (ex Kuhl, MS.), and otherwise as simply 

 Cuvier. In the case of inedited matter, the 

 citation would be Kuhl (in Cuvier, etc.), and 

 otherwise as Kuhl. This, like the other points 

 criticized above, is a singularly retrograde 

 step. 



J. A. Allen. 



CURREIS^T NOTES ON METEOROLOGY. 



METEOROLOGICAL RESULTS OF THE BLUE HILL 

 KITE WORK. 



The meteorological work done at the Blue 

 Hill Observatory by means of kites has so 

 often been alluded to in these ' Notes ' that no 

 comments on the value of this work are neces- 

 sary at this time. The latest publication in 

 this connection is a valuable report by H. H. 

 Clayton, entitled ' The Diurnal and Annual 

 Periods of Temperature, Humidity and Wind 

 Velocity up to Four Kilometers in the Free 

 Air, and the Average Vertical Gradients of 

 these Elements at Blue Hill ' (Annals Astron. 

 Ohs. Harv. Coll., LVIIL, Pt. I., 1904). Al- 

 though some of the results herein discussed 

 have already been brought forward in previous 

 publications by Mr. Rotch and Mr. Clayton, 

 the compact and careful summary now issued 

 will be welcomed as giving a definite and com- 

 plete presentation of the principal conclusions 

 which have been reached through the well- 

 known, extended and laborious series of scien- 

 tific kite flights — a field of investigation in 

 which Blue Hill has taken a front rank. 



A study of the sources of error in the in- 

 struments and methods precedes the discussion 

 of the results. Six possible sources of con- 

 stant error are recognized as influencing the 

 records, and also one source of error, not con- 

 stant, which arises from temporary local dif- 

 ferences of condition, and from the fact that 

 the kites do not rise vertically. A glance at 

 these preliminary pages will show with what 

 extreme care the observations have been treat- 



