April 28, 1905.] 



SCIENCE. 



661 



long concentrated his attention chiefly on 

 reptiles and amphibians, and the orders of 

 those classes admitted by him are trenchantly 

 separated by well-marked osteological charac- 

 ters. When he entered the ichthyological 

 field he found that orders generally recognized 

 in that class had not the same morphological 

 value as the reptilian ones, and naturally 

 groped around till he conceived he found a 

 corresponding one in the group generally 

 ranked as a subclass — Teleostei. The Amer- 

 ican naturalists took the orders as they found 

 them left by their predecessors in the field, 

 but a little examination and comparison 

 showed that differences manifest within each 

 of the large orders were of even greater mor- 

 phological value than those used to differen- 

 tiate the old orders. Some of those orders were 

 consequently much contracted, as the Mala- 

 copterygii, Apodes, Anacanthini, Acantho- 

 pterygii and Plectognathi, and types ejected 

 therefrom were set apart as of equal value, 

 such as the Nematognathi, Plectospondyli, 

 Symbranchii, Heteromi, Opisthomi, Pediculati 

 and others. While these may not compare 

 with the reptilian orders, they do with the 

 mammalian and avian. One who has derived 

 his knowledge of the orders of mammals and 

 birds from a comparative examination of their 

 skeletal features, and not from definitions in 

 books alone, must admit that the average or- 

 ders of mammals are not of greater mor^jho- 

 logical importance than the orders or ' sub- 

 orders ' of fishes, and that most of the orders 

 of birds are of much less value. Likewise are 

 the most contracted families of fishes of 

 greater morphological value than most of 

 those of birds — especially the Oscine birds — 

 and of as great importance as the majority of 

 those of mammals. A desire to establish for 

 the fishes groups comparable with those 

 adopted by the numerous students of birds 

 and mammals has led American students to 

 the narrow limitations of groups manifest in 

 their works. The contrary method isolates 

 ichthyology and gives a false or distorted idea 

 of the significance of the terms order, family 

 and genus. An expression of hope may be 

 pardoned, therefore, that inasmuch as a long 

 established standard for comparison has been 



adopted by many ichthyologists, others may 

 in time recognize the propriety of accepting 

 such a standard themselves. 



The consideration of other differences must 

 be left to other times and other places. Mean- 

 while we may congratulate European natural- 

 ists that the incubus which has long de- 

 pressed ichthyology in the old world has been, 

 to some extent at least, lifted, and that in- 

 vestigation may liow be so directed that it 

 will be profitable to systematic development. 

 It was a bad and unscientific method that 

 has paralyzed science in Europe for these 

 many years, and let us hope that the new work 

 may. force it far into the background, if not 

 wholly eradicate it. Let it be distinctly un- 

 derstood that the only sound foundation for 

 scientific ichthyology is a profound compara- 

 tive anatomy, and especially osteology of all 

 the genera. This truth has long been rec- 

 ognized in the United States by some investi- 

 gators, but it has not yet been appreciated by 

 our nmseum authorities and in that respect 

 the investigators of the old world and espe- 

 cially of London will for the present have a 

 great advantage over 'Americans. We may 

 envy our European colaborers, but shall be 

 glad, nevertheless, to admire and avail our- 

 selves of their superior advantages. We shall 

 be grateful, also, for the new light which the 

 coauthors of the ' Cambridge Natural History,' 

 and especially Dr. Boulenger, have thrown 

 and will continue to throw on mooted ques- 

 tions of morphology and classification. We 

 thank them now. Theo. Gill. 



SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND ARTICLES. 

 The March number of the Botanical Ga- 

 zette contains the following papers : John M. 

 Coulter and W. J. G. Land give an account 

 of the gametophytes and embryo of Torreya 

 taxifolia, a species localized in eastern Florida, 

 and closely related to Taxus. The type seems 

 to be specialized rather than primitive, with a 

 solitary archegonium, remarkably early fertil- 

 ization, and no ' open cells ' in the proembryo. 

 The peculiar ' rumination ' of endosperm 

 proves to be due to the irregular encroach- 

 ment of endosperm upon perisperm. Pehr 

 Olsson-Seffer discusses the principles of phy- 



