Editorial Comment. 323 
sential condition. But in general the close relation of currents 
to food supply is so obvious that we cannot regard Prof. Bourne's 
explanation as independently and universally valid. If taken as 
not excluding but supplementing the theory that the supplv of 
food is a sine qua no?i., it may command acceptance. 
In Nature., March 15th, Robert Irvine and James G. Ross 
give the results of careful study of the solubility of coral rock 
in sea w^ater. Both conclude that the rate of solution is rapid 
enough to produce note-worthy results highly favorable to 
Murray's theory. H. B. Guppy comes forward also with a 
suggestion to the effect that the auti-subsidcuce theory is not 
obliged to rely upon solution alone for its validity. It has 
many other strong points in its favor. 
THE PALyEONTOI.OGICAL LABORS OF PROF. JOS. F. JAMES, 
The destructive tendency exhibited in nearly all of Prof. 
James' papers, and their extreme boldness, have given them, at 
any rate so it appears to us, a degree of importance beyond their 
true merit. They seem also to show little respect for the work 
of others, some of whom have required many years of pains- 
taking study to formulate views which he casts aside as worth- 
less. That all men are liable to errors is too apparent to need 
to be admitted here, yet it is neither just nor possible to set aside 
an author's views without giving good reasons for doing so. 
This it seems he has regarded as unnecessary, since in no in- 
stance are his views supported by any facts nor evidence beyond 
his mere assertion. Scientific truths must stand upon more 
than mere assertions — facts must be cited before they can be 
regarded as entitled to favorable consideration. 
To show that the above criticism is well founded, we will 
briefly review Prof. James' palaeontological papers in the order 
that they appeared. 
In his first paper, which ajDpeared in the Journal of the Cin. 
Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. vii, 1884, he grapples with one of the most 
difficult subjects, — the so-called fucoids of the Cincinnati rocks. 
This group of fossils had been mainly named by Mr. S. A. 
Miller, though other authorities, among them Prof. James Hal 
and Mr. C. D. Walcott, also contributed. Prof. James under- 
