Page images

or at least should be able to read German with ease. Is it not catering to a wrong principle to make such a work accessible to those who must master German, if they would follow scientific thought to any depth, to say nothing of making contributions to scientific knowledge? Every one will answer this question for himself.

In criticizing the translation adversely, it must, however, not be forgotten that to secure even this result involved an enormous amount of drudgery on the part of the translator, which will be appreciated by every one who has translated even a small book.


general knowledge of the elements of physical chemistry.

It is an unfortunate beginner into whose innocent hands such a book is placed, and this leads to a few words in reference to this phase of the subject of teaching science. It is a fair question to ask whether the error is not frequently made by over-zealous teachers, of placing works that are too advanced in the hands of their pupils. The reviewer recalls having heard a teacher of organic chemistry announce rather boastfully that his class of beginners in organic chemistry was given Richter's book, and made to master its entire contents, i. e., master it from the standpoint of examination.

This was only a little more unfortunate than the placing of Ostwald's inorganic chemistry in the possession of those who were just beginning the study of general chemistry. The result in both cases would be the same, of course, inevitable failure.

A similar result would be secured by beginning the study of physical chemistry with the book under review.

A few words must be added in reference to the English translation. The translation of the first edition of this book into English, as is well-known, left much to be desired. It is not too much to say that it was inadequate and unsatisfactory. It was with some feeling of relief that the new translation was greeted. It seemed that this admirable book would now be rendered into satisfactory English. It is deeply to be regretted that the examination of the translation showed that it did not fulfil this expectation. The translator states in his own preface that “The bulk of the old text, however, remains as it was. This is most disappointing.

If we examine the translation page by page, we shall find so many glaring violations of good, clear, idiomatic English that we soon become disheartened. These reasons alone lead us to advise those who would work through the book to use the original German; and this raises the further question, whether it is even desirable to translate such an advanced work from the German into English? Any one who can use this book with profit can,


The contents of The American Journal of Anatomy for September are as follows:

FRANKLIN P. Mall: ‘On the Angle of the Elbow.'

E. LINDON MELLUS: 'A Study of the Location and Arrangement of the Giant Cells in the Cortex of the Right Hemisphere of the Bonnet Monkey (Macacus Sinicus).

SUSANNA PHELPS GAGE: 'A Three Weeks' Human Embryo, with Especial Reference to the Brain and the Nephric System.'

WILLIAM Sxow MILLER: “The Blood and Lymph Vessels of the Lung of Necturus maculatus.'

FRANK A. STROMSTEN: “A Contribution to the . Anatomy and Development of the Venous System of Chelonia.'

The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases for August opens with a study of clinical and post-mortem records bearing on the operability of brain tumors and their symptomatology, by Drs. G. L. Walton and W. E. Paul. Following this, Dr. S. D. Ludlum reports an experimental study on the regeneration of the peripheral nerves; and the presidential address delivered by Dr. Spiller before the American Neurolo Neurological Association, on the importance in clinical diagnosis of paralysis of associated movements of the eyeballs, especially of upward and downward movements, is concluded in this number. It is extensively illustrated and elucidated by tables. The leading article in the September issue is by

Dr. Theodore A. IIoch, on a case of acute anterior poliomyelitis in a youth, sixteen years old, who died in thirteen weeks after the onset of the disease. The clinical and postmortem records of the case are given, and the microscopical examination is extensively illustrated. The article is to be continued. Following this, Dr. Paul Masoin, physician at the colony of Gheel, Belgium, reports and briefly discusses five cases of epileptiform at tacks occurring in the course of dementia præcox among patients at the colony, comparing them with the other motor exteriorations of hebephreno catatonic subjects. Dr. Guy Ilinsdale next presents the history of a remarkable case of paraplegia from fracture of the first, second and third dorsal vertebræ. The patient suffered seven other fractures in the accident, an explosion. A laminectomy was performed, removing the arches of the first, second, third and a part of the fourth dorsal vertebra. Three years after the accident the patient is able to turn herself in bed. and to walk with assistance. Dr. M. A. Bliss reports a case of small round cell sarcoma of the spinal column, and Dr. G. L. Walton one of family atrophy of the peroneal type.

Marsh and from the posterior portion of another cranium also found in the Bone Cabin Quarry.

All three specimens exhibit a well-defined parietal foramen at the junction of the parietals, frontals and supraoccipitals. This foramen is smoothly lined with bone and leads directly down into the cerebral cavity. It is thus highly probable that it lodged a large pineal eye, an organ the existence of which was left problematical by Marsh. In Marsh's drawing the parietal opening is indicated rather as a fontanelle than as a foramen.

The skull of Morosaurus differs from that of Diplodocus principally in the highly convex forehead or antorbital region, which is undoubtedly correlated with the difference in character of the great cropping teeth, which contrast widely with the slender, pencil-like teeth of Diplodocus. This skull shows these teeth in different stages of wear and of shedding or succession. Above, there are four premaxillary and eight maxillary teeth, decreasing in size as they extend toward the back of the jaw. From twelve to thirteen mandibular teeth are preserved. The deep, massive proportions of the premaxillaries, maxillaries and mandibular rami are also mechanically correlated with the insertion and powerful functions of these large teeth. It is evident, however, that the animal had no power of masticating its food, and that these anterior teeth served simply for prehensile purposes.

The anterior narial openings are very large and face forward and obliquely upward, rather than more directly upward, as in Diplodocus. The antorbital openings are correspondingly reduced. As restored, the orbits are enormous, but there is considerable deficiency of bone in the surrounding parts, so that the contours are not quite certain. From the superior aspect of the skull it is evident that both frontals and nasals were much longer than in Diplodocus, the latter bones sending forward median


1. Skull of Morosaurus. One of the most fortunate discoveries resulting from the American Museum excavations in the Bone Cabin Quarry deposits, in the Wyoming Jurassic, was the skull of Morosaurus. Hitherto our knowledge of the skull of the Sauropoda has been limited to the skull of Diplodocus and the posterior portion of the cranium of one specimen of Morosaurus, both described by Marsh.

The present specimen (Amer. Mus., No. 467) was traced by Dr. W. D. Matthew from a series of crushed cervical vertebræ. It was found in an extremely crushed condition and was restored with great skill and care by Mr. Adam Hermann, the preparator of the museum. In the region of the occiput some aid was gained from the specimen described by

1“ There is no true pineal foramen, but in the skull here figured (Pl. II.) there is the small unossified tract mentioned above. In one specimen of Jorosaurus a similar opening has been obserred, but in other Sauropoda the parietal bones, even if thin, are complete.”

bars uniting with the slender premaxillary processes. A striking feature is the large parietal foramen opening directly into the brain case, as above described. It is noteworthy that the occiput or back part of the skull has practically the same composition as that of the carnivorous dinosaurs, namely: (1) supraoccipitals bounding the parietal foramen posteriorly (this foramen is, howerer, absent in the carnivorous dinosaurs); (2) lateral parietal plates which hardly enter into the top of the cranial roof except to bound the parietal foramina at the sides; (3) the squamosals forming together with the paroccipital processes the infralateral portions of the occiput; (4) occipital condyles composed exclusively of the basioccipitals.

Correlated with the muscular insertions for the motions of the powerful neck we find two very powerful processes extending doyn from the basisphenoidal region, presenting a wide contrast to the comparatively slender processes observed in Diplodocus. The quadrates and pterygoids have substantially the same shape as in Diplodocus; the other bones of palate are not preserved. Of the bones of the jaw the dentaries, coronoids, articulars and angulars are well preserved, as shown in the drawing. The coronoids have a considerable upward extension, but nothing to compare with that seen in the Predentata since it is not necessary to provide for the insertion of muscles of mastication.

It is this skull which was mainly used in the mounted skeleton of Brontosaurus in the museum; only the anterior part of the skull of this animal being known.

hind limb of one side, and the terminal portion of the tail. The restoration of the skull is largely conjectural from that of Morosaurus above described, and the missing parts of the limbs are restored from the famous specimen in the Yale Museum, the type of Marsh's Brontosaurus excelsus. The terminal portion of the tail is completed from another individual in the American Museum of Natural History.

T he special features of the skeleton are its large size, the absence of crushing of the bones, and the completeness of the ribs. The mounting represents not only prolonged work of difficult restoration under the supervision of the head preparator, Mr. Hermann, but very careful anatomical studies, in which Messrs. Granger, Matthew and Gidley materially assisted the writer. Messrs. Granger and Matthew especially made a complete restoration of the muscles of the shoulder girdle and fore limb prior to the placing of these elements, which was an extremely difficult matter. The manus represents the single-clawed condition, resulting from comparison with the feet of many Sauropoda. The chief measurements of the skeleton are:

Ft. In. Length over all, from head to tip of tail ...........

.. 66 8 Length of vertebral column... Length of neck........

.. 16 10 Length of tail................ .. 31 4 Length of longest rib.............. Length of hind limb including foot. 10 7 Length of fore limb including foot. 8 6 Depth of body from lower end of pubis to top of posterior dorsal

...................... 8 7 Length of head as restored........ 2 4



2. Mounted Skeleton of Brontosaurus.

The mounting of Brontosaurus has occupied the museum staff more or less continuously since the discovery of the skeleton by Mr. Granger and Mr. Grant, of the American Museum expedition, in 1897. In 1898 and 1899 the excavation was completed, and a little more than two thirds of the entire skeleton was recovered. The chief missing parts are the skull, the three anterior cervicals, the fore limbs of both sides from the shoulder down, the upper portions of the sacrum, the

It is interesting to compare these measurements with those of a fully grown 'sulphur bottom' whale, carefully measured by Mr. F. A. Lucas, and reproduced at the St. Louis Exposition. This animal, a male, measured 74 feet, 8 inches, from the notch of the flukes to the tip of the nose. The approximate weight of the bones was 17,920 pounds. The entire animal was estimated at not far from 63 tons. We observe that while the body of the whale is longer than that of Brontosaurus, the absence of limbs in the whale would reduce the water displacement and weight.

Several new features are brought out in relation to the proportions of Brontosaurus. While a number of terminal vertebræ are undoubtedly missing, the tail is less elongate and massive than was supposed by the writer at one time. There is no evidence that it served for the support of the body, nor was the fin development for propulsion in water so great as in Diplodocus. A second point of interest is that the sacrum, while the center for motion was not certainly the highest point in the body, as at one time supposed by the writer. The center of the vertebræ arch upward in front of the sacrum, and while the neural spines rapidly subside, the highest point appears to have been about the middle of the back; unless, indeed, the fore limbs were very much more flexed than appear in the present mount.

There is still room for wide differences of opinion as regards the habits and means of locomotion of these gigantic animals. Some hold the opinion that the limbs were far more flexed at the knee and elbow than they are in the present mount, that on land at least the animal had rather the attitude of the alligator, and that only while submerged beneath the water were the limbs straightened for the purposes of walking along the bottom, the claws serving to keep the feet from slipping in the mud.

II. F. O.

that it has determined the family name, the inquiries being in continuation of some observations and experiments on the squeteague (Cynoscion regalis) carried on by Professor R. W. Tower, at Woods IIole, in 1901 and 1902, and noted by me in the Report of the U. S. Fish Commissioner for 1902 (page 137).

The diverse notions prevailing among modern writers on fishes may be seen from the following quotations from a few standard works.

Günther, in ' An Introduction to the Study of Fishes' (1880), makes only a single reference to drumming, and that a highly edifying one in connection with Pogonias cromis :

These drumming sounds are frequently noticed by persons in vessels lying at anchor on the coasts of the United States. It is still a matter of uncertainty by what means the drum produces the sounds. Some naturalists believe that it is caused by the clapping together of the pharyngeal teeth, which are very large molar teeth. However, if it be true that the sounds are accompanied by a tremulous motion of the vessel, it seems more probable that they are produced by the fishes beating their tails against the bottom of the vessel in order to get rid of the parasites with which that part of their body is infested.

Jordan and Evermann, in their admirable American Food and Game Fishes' (1902), reassert what was stated in their ‘Fishes of North and Middle America' (1898), namely, that the peculiar noise is supposed to be produced by forcing air from the air-bladder into one of the lateral horns.'

Boulenger, in the section on fishes in volume VII. of the Cambridge Natural History (1904), discusses 'sound-producing organs’ at some length, but appears to be unaware of the special mechanism existing in the drumfishes. He cites several ways in which sounds are produced through the agency of muscles connected with the air-bladder, and copies from Sörensen’ a diagram of the air-bladder and 'musculo-tendinous extensions from muscles of the body-wall’of a croaker (Micropogon


(SCIÆNID.E). It is rather remarkable that so common a function as the drumming of fishes should have remained so long misunderstood; that so much speculation should have been indulged in regarding a phenomenon so easily investigated in most parts of the world; and that a conspicuous specialized drumming muscle should have been either overlooked or ignored by ichthyologists.

For several years, as opportunity was afforded, I have been studying the peculiar drumming sounds made by those fishes in which this function is so strikingly developed

Reviewed by Dr. Theodore Gill in SCIENCE, April 28, 1905.

2 Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, Vol. XXIX., 1895.

undulatus) as an example of fishes in which drumming muscle, lying between the abdom

the air-bladder, without possessing special inal muscles and the peritoneum and extendmuscles of its own, may, nevertheless, being the entire length of the abdomen on either partially invested by tendinous, or partly mus- side of the median line, the muscles of the cular and partly tendinous, extensions from two sides being united dorsally by a strong the muscles of the body-wall.'

aponeurosis. The muscle is of a decided red In the latest and best general work on color, in sharp contrast to the pale muscles of ichthyology, Jordan's Guide to the Study of the abdominal parietes, and the fibers are very Fishes' (1905), this subject is but incidentally short, running at right angles to the long axis touched on, the principal reference being that of the muscle.

the grunting noise made by most of the 2. The muscle, with the aponeurosis, is in Sciænidæ in the water is at least connected close relation with the large air-bladder, and with the large and divided air-bladder. by its rapid contractions produces a drumming

The most satisfactory account of the drum- sound, with the aid of the tense air-bladder, ming function is that of Sörensen in his paper which acts as a resonator. Experimentally,

Om Lydorganer hos Fiske' (Copenhagen, the removal of the air-bladder or the section 1884), the essential parts of which in the of the nerves supplying the muscle abolishes present connection are restated in the article the sound; if a removed air-bladder is restored cited by Boulenger. Sörensen acknowledges, to its place the drumming is resumed; and however, that he had examined only a single the substitution for a removed air-bladder of dead specimen of a single sciænid species any hollow, thin-walled vessel of suitable size (Micropogon undulatus), and it is not clear permits the resumption of drumming when from his description that he recognized in the special muscle is stimulated. the muscle in relation with the air-bladder a 3. The muscle exists only in the males, and distinct organ rather than simply an offshoot only the males are able to make a drumming of one of the abdominal muscles. It is also sound. doubtful whether Dufossé (Annales des Sci- It is probable the drumming mechanism ences Naturelles, XIX.-XX., 1874), whom and function as existing in the squeteagues Sörensen quotes with approval, correctly in- are typical of a majority of the genera of terpreted the cause of this phenomenon in the Sciaenidæ; but there are some interesting drums, as this extract from Sörensen's paper variations in the limited number of genera will show (italics mine):

which I have been able to examine in the field By means of dissections [of Sciæna aquila] and laboratory. Thus in the croaker (MicroDufossé has proved that tones can be produced pogon undulatus) the special drumming musby the activity of most of the muscles, which, cle is present in both male and female, and coated with aponeuroses, are in immediate con

both sexes make the drumming sound; while tact with the diverticula of the air-bladder, but

in the so-called king-fishes or whitings that the most frequent and most intense tones are produced by the activity of those muscles, which,

(Menticirrhus) the drumming muscle and aircompletely naked, are placed around the long bladder are absent in both sexes and no drumbranches of the largest diverticula. The tones ming sounds are made. The seven commonest may be of different pitch, in perfect accordance genera of drum-fishes found along the Atwith their being formed in different places (and lantic coast may be thus classified with referunder the influence of different muscles).

ence to the drumming function: The drumming act has been more thor

i. Drumming muscle present in both male and oughly studied in the squeteague than in any

female, and drumming sound made by both other scianid species; and the facts regarding

sexes ........................ Jlicropogon. it, as determined by Professor Tower, may ü. Drumming muscle present only in male, and here be repeated substantially as stated by me drumming sound produced only by the male. in 1902 (l. c.), but in somewhat greater detail:

Pogonias, Sciænops, Cynoscion, 1. There is in the squeteague a special

Leiostomus, Bairdiella.

« PreviousContinue »