April 7, 1905.] 



SCIENCE. 



KILAUEA AGAIN ACTIVE. 



It may be of interest to the readers of 

 Science to know that the fire has again re- 

 turned to the world-renowned volcano Kilauea 

 in the Hawaiian Islands after an absence of 

 thirteen j'ears. The citizens of Hawaii, who 

 are intensely interested in this volcano, had 

 well nigh despaired of witnessing another 

 season of activity. The fresh lava appeared 

 the last week of February, heralded by a 

 slight earthquake. On the twenty-fifth instant 

 it was not observed — smoke filling the pit. 

 Two days later it is reported that a lava lake 

 was on exhibition, two hundred and fifty feet 

 long and one hundred feet wide. On March 

 10 the Volcano House reported that the lake 

 is not so large as at first stated; but the crater 

 is absolutely free from smoke. " Heavy 

 rumblings and explosions indicate that another 

 outbreak is imminent." Thus there seems to 

 be a restoration of the old-time activity — such 

 as will cause a large increase in the number 

 of visitors. 



Observations with a good spectroscope are 

 needed. Professor Libbey used one there to 

 good purpose a few years since, but did not 

 name all the substances indicated. We espe- 

 cially need more information about the hydro- 

 gen flames, as well as the hydrocarbons. The 

 latter substance is so commonly of organic 

 origin that the best of evidence is required to 

 fully establish a belief in its presence in this 

 incandescent magma fresh from the realms of 

 Pluto. It is hoped that some one who is 

 skilled in the use of the spectroscope will 

 utilize this opportunity to determine the na- 

 ture of the substances now being emitted from 

 this famous volcano. C. H. Hitchcock. 



Hanover, K H., 

 March 23, 1905. 



SPECIAL ARTICLES. 



THE PRAIRIE MOUNDS OF LOUISIANA. 



While it may not generally be appropriate 

 to discuss the content of a paper on the basis 

 of a mere abstract report by the secretary of 

 a society, I venture to make some comments 

 on the paper read by A. C. Veatch on the 

 'Natural Mounds of Louisiana,' at the 

 late meeting of the Geological Society of 



Washington, as given in the last issue of 

 Science; since I have made a number of such 

 excavations as are called for by him. 



I have briefly disciissed these mounds in my 

 final report on the geological reconnoissance of 

 Louisiana made by me 1869, published in 1873. 

 I dug into a number of them on the Opelousas 

 prairie, and also on the Calcasieu prairie. 

 Having just previously investigated the mud- 

 lumps of the Mississippi Passes, my first con- 

 jecture was that of mudspring origin; but the 

 total absence of the characteristic ' onion ' 

 structure of such mudspring cones at once 

 made me abandon this hypothesis. The total 

 absence of any regular structure or stratifica- 

 tion, such as characterizes all dune or other 

 wind-drift structures, equally excluded these; 

 as well as water erosion, since the soil and sub- 

 soil of the surrounding prairie are quite dis- 

 tinctly in horizontal layers. I, therefore, as 

 shown in the paper alluded to, considered their 

 ant-hill origin as the only reasonable explana- 

 tion ; raising the question as to how the once 

 teeming population of these vast areas came 

 to be destroyed. Climatic changes suggested 

 themselves to me, but the present existence of 

 ant villages in the adjoining state of Texas 

 seemed to negative this assumption also. 



A number of years afterwards I was forcibly 

 reminded of the inutility of supposing climatic 

 changes to have occurred, when having camped 

 in the Yellowstone valley after nightfall on a 

 convenient elevation above the sodden ground, 

 I was put to precipitate flight by an army of 

 large ants issuing from beneath my rubber 

 mattress. Daylight observation revealed to 

 me the counterparts of the Louisiana mounds, 

 only as a rule less thickly grouped than on 

 the Louisiana prairies; and on excavating 

 some of these mounds which had been de- 

 serted by their aggressive inhabitants, I noted 

 precisely the same structureless earth I had 

 seen in the Opelousas prairie, only this time 

 traversed by half-obliterated burrows, which 

 in the Louisiana mound-fields were almost 

 wholly imperceptible, or at least undistin- 

 guishable from old root-tracks. 



It therefore seems to me that the question 

 of the Louisiana mounds resolves itself into 

 a biological problem, viz., what kind of ant 



