158 
JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY 
A PLEA FOR MORE CONCISE TECHNICAL PAPERS 
To the Editor of the Journal: 
Now that so many excellent suggestions and criticisms anent the standardizing 
of observations, using common sense in regard to vernacular names, and kindred 
topics, are appearing in the Journal, the time seems propitious for calling atten- 
tion to another matter, and that is the lack of system often to be noted in techni- 
cal work. 
For a long time, when one had occasion to name a new form, brevity seemed' 
to be the height of style, and the rule was for an original description to consist 
of about a dozen lines. Little more than the designation of a type was attempted, 
with the result that if one wished to learn the ways in which the new form differed- 
from its close relatives, he was obliged to work this out for himself — if he had the 
material to do so. Almost anything is better than such fragmentary information. 
Now, however, the pendulum of style seems to be swinging to the other extreme, 
and one frequently encounters comparatively unimport ant facts and theories of a 
systematic nature that are clothed with a wealth of detail worthy of more im- ' 
portant subjects. Studies that are of a more pretentious character are often 
buried beneath a perfect avalanche of detail and ultra-scientific language that 
confuses even the experienced systematist. Why is this necessary? Is it a sub- 
conscious effort on the part of the author to impress the reader with his scientific 
weight? Any zoologist can awe the layman with nomeHclatural camouflage, but 
the more advanced student is impressed only by the annoyance of having to wade- 
through page after page of minutiae while searching for something of real use to 
him. Perhaps this is only a manifestation of one’s enthusiasm and a tendency to be- 
carried away by one’s subject, but the fact remains that continual watchfulness 
and care are necessary in order properly to correlate the unimportant with the 
important matters, and not overemphasize the former. If due attention is given 
to such points, not only will the systematic work of others be facilitated, but 
much of the derision which the general public aims at the strictly scientific 
worker, because of his excited strivings over, and voluminous publications on,, 
what may well be expiessed by the word “piffle,” will be annulled. 
A. Brazier Howell, 
