SCIENCE. 
7 
A bronze statue of Leibnitz, measuring y / 2 metres in 
height, is about to be erected at Leipzig, on the southern 
side of St. Thomas Churchyard. This memorial to the 
great German philosopher will be executed by Professor 
Hanel, of Dresden. 
The announcement is made that Dr. Carpenter the 
well known Microscopist, and author of one of the best 
works on the subject, will pay a visit to the United 
States during 1880. We can accord him the promise 
of a warm reception in this country, where he will be 
welcomed by all classes of Scientists, for his lesearches 
have covered a wide range of scientific investigations 
which were recorded in language so felicitous, that he 
gave a charm even to the most abstruse subjects. 
The Twelfth and Thirteenth Annual Reports of Amer- 
ican Archaeology and Ethnology contain, as usual, sev- 
eral papers of great ethnological interest. From the Re- 
port of the Curator, Mr. F. W. Putnam, it is evident that 
much excellent work continues to be done in the museum, 
which is rapidly becoming one of the most valuable re- 
pertories of ethnology in the world. The papers are all 
connected with American ethnology, the most important 
probably being that of Mr. Baudelier, on the Social Or- 
ganization and Mode of Government of the Ancient 
Mexicans. 
Ichthyophagy is about to receive a new impetus by 
the organization of the Ichthyophagous club, the object 
of which is “ to reveal to gourmets the unsuspected ex- 
cellence cf many neglected varieties of fish-food, and to 
make manifest to the people at large the still untried ca- 
pacity of sea, lake, and river, to yield the materials of 
human nourishment.” The first dinner of the Ichthyop- 
hagists will take place at the Rockaway Beach Hotel on 
the 30th instant, which though partially experimental, 
will include enough familiar components to satisfy the 
least adventurous taste. 
The President of the club is John Foord, Esq., 
managing Editor of the New York Times, and Mr. E. G. 
Blackford, Treasurer, who will receive the names of those 
who desire to attend the dinner, and enroll themselves as 
Ichthyophagists. 
DIATOMACEvE v. DESMIDIACEzE. 
Dr. Jabez Hogg, the well-known professional microscop- 
ist and author of “ The Microscope — Its History, Construc- 
tion and Application,” recently wrote a letter, in which he 
incidentally spoke of “ Bacillaria paradoxa” as a desmid. 
On being challenged to give his reasons for such a classifi- 
cation, Dr. Hogg wrote the following letter: 
BACILLARIA. 
[17575I. — Mr. Fedarb (17334) wishes to know my reasons for 
classing Bacillaria amongst Desmidiaceas, and I beg him to under- 
stand that it is not my classification, but that of botanists who long 
ago claimed them ; and as biologists have thought fit to acquiesce 
in this arrangement, I fear there is now no help for the microscop- 
ist; he must quietly submit. Ehrenberg, as many of your corre- 
spondents well know, placed them in his great family of Infusoria, 
but Kutzing, and other naturalists, a few years ago, regarded Ba- 
cillaria paradoxa as a species of Algae. In the last edition ot 
Pritchard’s “Infusoria,” edited by men of repute, Bacillaria are 
placed in the family of Surirelleae. The reason assigned for this 
is, that diatoms and desmids differ very little in their general char- 
acteristics. Both without much impropriety are said to be cellular 
plants inhabiting salt and fresh water. They certainly differ, inas- 
much as diatoms have a dense silicious skeleton, usually divisible 
into two parts, or valves, and are without coloring matter or 
chromule. Desmids, on the other hand, have a non-silicious 
envelope, which is separable into two segments, and are filled with 
green coloring matter — chromule. The vital phenomena presented 
are nearly identical. Diatoms are more lively and have a more 
animal-like motion, and their silicious skeletons are almost inde- 
structible, and their envelope is very transparent and of a gelati- 
nous nature. Desmids, I believe, are destitute of the sarcode ele- 
ment, and are quite destroyed on being submitted to boiling. The 
movements of Bacillaria paradoxa are so remarkable, and so little 
understood, that in commenting upon them I was anxious to elicit 
the opinions of those whose opportunities for studying their habit 
were much greater than my own. 
With reference to Mr. Fedarb’s request, that I should specialize 
the “contaminating agents" of impure water, he will find that I 
have made some attempt to deal with this difficult question in the 
present number of the English Mechanic. 
Jabez Hogg. 
At our request, Professor H. L. Smith, of Geneva, N. Y., 
who has made a special study of the Diatomaceae, has writ- 
ten a comment on Dr. Hogg’s explanation, which appears 
to effectually dispose of this matter. 
NOTE. 
It is really astonishing to see what errors one may fall 
into when writing upon a subject about which one is igno- 
rant. “ Ne siitor ultra crepidam," is a maxim which has not 
lost its force yet. The arguments, if one can call them so, 
adduced above for classing diatoms with dismids are easily 
disposed of. The author does not seem to be aware that the 
family name Bacillariae (adopted in the early days of micro- 
scopical study, for what we now call Diatomaceae) has long 
been dropped ; the name was given from the then most 
striking genus, Bacillaria, of which one of the species is B. 
paradoxa. I am not aware that any respectable Botanist, or 
Biologist has ever claimed, as asserted in the above com- 
munication, that diatoms and desmids are to be classed to- 
gether, except that both are algae. If, for this reason, Bacil- 
laria paradoxa can be called a desmid, we may call, e., g., 
since both are phaenogams, Hepatica triloba a Honeysuckle- 
What is meant precisely by saying that the editors of 
Pritchard place Bacillaria in the family of Surirelleae, or 
how it has any bearing on the question of calling it a des- 
mid, is difficult to understand. Really the writer of the 
above note has very little comprehension of what he is 
driving at. No one knew better than Mr. Ralfs, editor of 
Pritchard, article diatoms, the distinctions between diatoms 
and desmids, and nowhere does he fail to keep them dis- 
tinctly separate. It is not merely the silicious frustule, 
“ skeleton ” as it is called above, for many of the diatoms 
are not silicious, but it is their different structure, dif- 
ferent internal substance, different modes of growth, 
that marks them as distinct ; moreover desmids are 
not found, as is stated, in salt water, though diatoms 
are, and very abundantly too. In fine, not a single 
respectable writer, either in botany or biology can be cited, 
from Kutzing down, who will call Bacillaria paradoxa a 
desmid. The question is not one of both being alg® ; this 
every one now-a-days concedes ; but it is as to the propriety 
of calling an acknowledged diatom (one that once gave the 
family name to this group of organisms,) a dismid. 
H. L. Smith. 
