Personal and Scientific Neirs. 333 
inaccuracies which he chargjes, vvei'e unintentional, that the purpose 
was anything but to show disrespect to himself or his reverend instruct- 
ors, that the animus was only that which desires scientific truth, and 
the advanced and accurate methods which are calculated to secure it. 
The single inaccuracy specifically mentioned will be found to be that 
of Mr. Sardeson himself, and is apparent only upon reiiioving the 
expression quoted by him from its proper context. The paragraph in 
question reads as follows: " But the most serious arraignment I have 
to make of the general method employed is th&t in a paper of over one 
hundred pages, a paper which is systematic in its purpose if it is any- 
thing, the preeminent value of embryologic phases as phylogenetic fac- 
tors is entirely overlooked or slighted. Indeed, the statement is so gen- 
erally true that it may be made without modification, that nowhere has 
the writer used either embryologic stages or the succession of organic 
types in geologic time, as a proof, or as a check upon his work. Not 
only not performing investigations himself, but not even taking advan 
tage of investigations already made, whether in the field of zoology or 
paktontology, he pursues a theoretic course independent of facts of 
supreme importance ready to his hand." (American Geologist, vol. 
xviii, p. 38, line 3.3 etseq.) In this connection my meaning, I hope, is quite 
clear, that Mr. Sardeson has not directed his studies by truly 
phylogenetic principles, to the ontogeny of the individual. And 
this I believe is true. To state that he did not personally investigate 
the forms he discusses wpuld be as great folly in me as it is in him to 
imply that I did so, and my own statement, if I had in mind to make 
such, would be contradicted by another on the next page (1. c, p. 39, 
line 43.) "To discuss a particular case, one to which Mr. SardcFon has 
given more personal study, perhaps than to any other, etc." 
Indeed, I do not wish to impeach Mr. Sardeson as a careful and 
truth-telling observer; it is his deductions and his scientific method 
which in this case I call in question. 
As to the apparent oversight of my own notes on Favosites, pub- 
lished in March, 1895 (American Geologist, vol. xv, pp. 131146), that 
is quite satisfactorily explained by Mr. Sardeson on the basis of its 
near contemporaneity with his own work. But the same is not true of 
the careful studies of Michelinia (Pleurodictyum) and Favosites pub- 
lished by C. E. Beecher in 1891 (Trans. Conn. Acad., vol. 8, p. 217.) 
George H. Girty. 
PERSONAL AND SCIENTIFIC NEWS. 
Massachusetts Institute ov Technology. Mr. George H. 
Barton has been appointed assistant professor of geology, and 
Mr. Amadeus W. Grabau instructor in geology. 
Dk. J. W. Spencer spent the past siunnier in Norway, giv- 
ing much attention to geological observations, and returned 
in season to attend the meeting of the American Association. 
