Page images

given the dimensions of the standard rattler, the standard charge and the percentage loss of good approved brick, that the omission seems strange.

The second half of the book is devoted to engineering construction proper, to foundations, the discussion of which is particularly good, to bridges (thirty-nine pages), to high. ways, to water supply and sewerage. These subjects are necessarily but briefly taken up and probably no two educators, in carrying out the difficult task of presenting only the essentials, would agree on what should be excluded. It is, therefore, futile to compare these chapters with those of other authors or to weigh the values of the separate paragraphs of the present book. The lists of text-books given at the end of each chapter serve to refer the young officers, at need, to the proper sources of information and are a most important part of the book. H. N. OGDEN.


Morphology and Anthropology, a Handbook

for Students. By W. L. H. DưCKWORTH, M.A., University Lecturer on Physical Anthropology, etc. Cambridge, at the University Press, 1904. The Macmillan Company. $4.50 net.

This is a very good hand-book for the use of students, containing a great deal in moderate compass. It makes little pretense to be anything more than a compilation, except in so far as the author gives us the benefit of his own judgment on disputed points. To present a compilation so as to be most available is a task of more than average difficulty. We think the author has in this been very successful. He first considers man's position in the animal series in the light of comparative anatomy; which implies a general review of the anatomy of the primates. Special attention is devoted to certain parts, especially the skull and the teeth. The presentation of the various views concerning the latter is particularly interesting.

We quote the words with which the second section of the book opens as the simplest way of showing the author's plan:

The foregoing chapters have as their aim the demonstration of the fact that man is associated in a natural zoological classification with certain other mammals of the order Primates. It is now suitable to take up the second subject proposed for consideration in these notes, and to endeavor to ascertain something of man's ancestral history, that is, of the path of evolution traced by man. The means available for carrying out this enquiry are, in the present day, threefold: (1) Embryology, (2) comparative morphology of the various human races, and (3) paleontology.

The book then continues on these lines. The author introduces the embryological portion with the remark that its importance depends on the generalization that ontology repeats phylogeny. Since this book appeared this generalization has received a severe blow by Bardeen's researches on the development of the human spine, and, indeed, the author is ready to point out facts which do not agree with it. Long ago Marshall remarked that the record was a very imperfect one. It may now be questioned whether it will serve even as a working hypothesis. Be this as it may, Duckworth's observations strike us in the main very favorably, as both candid and judicious. It is not necessary to follow his work in detail.

We have purposely avoided the section on variations, not because we do not like it, but because the discussion would carry us too far. We will say in passing that the author does not seem to have freed himself from the widespread error, fostered by writers of the class of Wiedersheim and Testut, that resemblance is evidence of relationship. This slipshod method of thought has been so long condoned by those who should have been outspoken that it is doubly pleasant to read Osborn's address on the ‘Present Problems of Paleontology. Though our present author does not seem, as we have said, to have freed himself from this delusion, yet one suspects that he does not feel quite comfortable in its meshes. The reader will find in this part of the book a very convenient account of many methods used in practical anthropology.

A considerable part of the division of paleontology is given to the discussion of the School Science and Mathematics. The biological section, of which Professor Caldwell was formerly editor, has been divided into two sections, a zoological section and a botanical section. Professor Caldwell remains the botanical editor.

Trinil remains. This is very interesting. The author gives us the names of the three groups of anatomists who consider the remains human, simian and intermediate, respectively. The first group is essentially English, the second German and the third composite. Duck worth joins the last group, though admitting that the femur may be human. It is unfortunate that, having given so much space to this interesting question, he has not discussed the evidence that the pieces belong to one individual.

There are many other points which it would be interesting, at least to your reviewer, to discuss at length; but enough has probably been said to show that in his opinion it is a very good and useful hand-book.

T. D.

ni media genu

a Toesearts tote the proses


The September issue of the Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology contains the following articles: "A Study of the Functions of Different Parts of the Frog's Brain,' by Wilhelm Loeser. The brain was experimentally examined by the extirpation of various regions (twenty-two operations) and study of the deficiency phenomena and other symptoms. The Central Gustatory Paths in the Brains of Bony Fishes,' by C. Judson Herrick. This paper (which was awarded the Cartwright prize for this year) is a continuation of the author's previous studies on nerve components, in course of which the peripheral gustatory system has been isolated and experimentally studied in fishes. Selecting the types in which this system attains its maximum development, the central gustatory paths are demonstrated by various microscopical methods, the research including a description, accompanied by forty figures, of the conduction paths for all of the important gustatory reactions which have been experimentally observed in the normal life of these fishes. The central gustatory centers are found to be more closely related to the central olfactory system than to any other part of the brain.

PROFESSOR FRANK SMITH, of the University of Ilinois, has been made zoological editor of


THERE are some influential zoologists who, in their zeal for the integrity of scientific Latin (or Neolatin), propose to change the letters k and w, wherever they occur, into c and v. Thus Sir G. F. Hampson, in his great work on the moths of the world, cites a species as Episilia voccei, the specific name being a new rendering of wockei, originally proposed by Moeschler. Unfortunately, this method results in some unexpected duplication of names. Thus Gray, in 1846, applied the generic name Kogia to the pygmy sperm whale. Butler, in 1870, used Cogia for a valid genus of butterflies, which is recognized to-day by Dr. Dyar as occurring in our own fauna. Now Dr. D. G. Elliot, in a recent work, amends the name of the whale to Cogia, and if this is accepted the name of the butterfly-genus must fall. It is true that Elliot's Cogia is later than Butler's, but it is proposed as the correct way of spelling Gray's genus, and not intended in any sense as a new name.

Theobald has lately proposed Cellia as the name of a genus of mosquitoes. But in 1822 Turton named a valid genus of mollusca Kellia. According to the Hampson-Elliot method this becomes Cellia, and the mosquitogenus name is a homonym.

Kallima was proposed by Westwood in 1850 as the name of a well-known genus of butterflies. In 1860 Clemens named a valid genus of moths Callima. Now Dr. Dyar, because of Kallima, has named the moth genus Epicallimo

Again. Cnephasia. Curtis, interferes with Knephasia, Tepper.

moths, Xanthospilopteryx. In 1893 Carpenter named a species X. kirbyi, but it is a synonym of pardalina, Walker. In 1897 Holland

named another X. kirbyi, but this is a homo- and independent ideas, but they are 3d similar nym, as the rules are generally understood in spelling that one may be easily transformed Hampson calls Holland's species X. cirbyi, into another by a mere typographical error. and it is imaginable that this might be inter- But typographical errors will not account for preted as the necessary new name for the in- all cases, and there are certain other circumsect. Since, however, it is only intended as a stances which complicate the problem. Havnew way of writing the old name, it seems ing given the matter considerable study lately, that Holland's insect should be renamed, say, both in field and library, I can present some X. hollandi.

observations which should clear up most of Enough has been said to show that the the existing confusion. proposed abandonment of k and w, if it is The lexicographers all seem to favor 'humnot to prevail, should be checked as soon as mock. Webster, for instance, says: “Humpossible; or if it is to be the rule, should be mock (probably an Indian word). (1) A widely known, so that proposers of new names rounded knoll or hillock; * * * (2) A ridge may guide themselves accordingly. Personally, or pile of ice * * *. See Hommock. (3) TimI am totally opposed to it, on the ground that bered land. (Florida.)” Under 'hommock' names are merely symbols designating partic- is the following definition: "Hommock (writular objects, and the most we can ask is that ten also hammock and hummock). (Probably, they have a Latinoid ending, and are not too an Indian word.) A hillock, or small emilong. Nevertheless, the matter is at present nence of a conical form, sometimes covered an open one, and if most zoologists prefer to with trees. Bartram.” The definitions in follow Hampson and Elliot, the minority will the Century and Standard - dictionaries are probably give in to their wishes, for the sake somewhat longer, but do not differ materially of uniformity. On the other hand, if nearly from that of Webster, except that they say all are against the proposal, it would seem that hummock is probably a diminutive of that a few should not persist in making such hump. In all three, Bartram is the only changes as those cited, unless they can con authority cited for 'hommock’; and this word vince themselves that a very important mat

occurs on pages 31, 219–221, and perhaps elseter of principle is involved.

where in the 1794 edition of his "Travels.' If the editor will allow it, I will herewith The same spelling is used throughout Dr. E. ask all working zoologists who are willing to W. Hilgard's "Report on the Geology and take the trouble to send me a post-card voting Agriculture of Mississippi,' published in 1860, for or against the substitution of cand v for and in that work several varieties of "homk and w, and I will list the names and send mocks' are fully described. Dr. Hilgrade in a them for publication in SCIENCE. I think recent letter informs me that that spelling that the names should be published, for sev- was in accordance with the pronunciation eral rather obvious reasons, not the mere used by the natives, but that he now believes numbers pro and con.

“hammock’ to be correct, and writes it that T. D. A. COCKERELL.


The published references to “hammock' BOULDER, COLORADO.

and hummock' are so numerous that it

would be impracticable to attempt to list ‘HAMMOCK,' "IIOM MOCK' OR 'HUMMOCK'?

them; but thus far I have noted the former in SOME recent botanical papers seem to indi at least thirty different books and papers, the cate that there is still some uncertainty as to earliest dating back to 1839, and the latter in which of the above is the proper designation about half as many, beginning with 1834. for a certain class of geographical features of Most of the occurrences of both forms are in frequent occurrence in some parts of the works dealing with Florida, and a careful southeastern United States. These three search through Florida literature would doubtwords may represent three totally different less reveal many other cases of each. It is

very significant in this connection that most of the writers who use “hammock’ have spent much more time in the regions they describe than have those who use “hummock’; also that some who preferred the latter have ex pressly stated that the natives always pronounced it “hammock,' and yet their faith in the dictionaries seems to have been too firm to be shaken by this indisputable evidence. In some cases it is almost certain that hummock' was put in by the editor or printer, without the sanction of the author,' though I have indeed noticed one or two cases where the same may be said of “hammock.'

As far as my experience in the field goes, the natives in Georgia invariably say 'hammock. I have heard this word in the counties of Chatham, Coffee, Lowndes, Pulaski, Tattnall and Wilcox, and it is doubtless used throughout the intervening ones. If any further evidence were needed, a good map will show a Gulf Hammock (also a post-office of that name) and a Hammock Creek in Florida, and a Hammock Island in Georgia. I have never yet seen hummock' on a map though, nor found any evidence that it is ever used in conversation anywhere (in the sense here indicated). As usage fixes the language, it follows that “hammock’ is the correct form.

Now as for the definition of this word. It is used for quite a variety of conditions, but from all the evidence obtainable it may be defined broadly as a limited area, with comparatively dry soil (at least never inundated, and thus distinguished from a swamp), containing a large proportion of trees other than pines, and located in a region where 'prairies, marshes or open pine forests predominate. Topographically a hammock may be either a slight elevation, or a depression, or a slope, and its soil may be sandy, clayey or rocky. The soil is usually rather rich, and the trees growing in it are usually mostly evergreensthough there is probably no one tree which

characterizes all hammocks—and they usually grow so close together as to shade the ground and allow the formation of humus, which is almost wanting in adjacent areas.

A few varieties of hammocks may be briefly mentioned. On the coast of South Carolina and Georgia, at least in the vicinity of Savannah, a hammock is a low sandy island in a salt marsh, conspicuous for its dense growth of evergreen woody plants; and in the Everglades of Florida, according to the accounts of several different explorers, it is a sort of rocky oasis, elevated a few inches above the adjacent prairies, and densely wooded. For these two kinds of places the term 'hummock' (diminutive of hump) would not be altogether inappropriate, and this fact doubtless accounts for some of the confusion above mentioned. But in central Florida, by all accounts, it seems that a hammock is usually a depression; while in the interior of the coastal plain of Georgia it is nearly always a sandy slope forming an intermediate zone between the river or creek swamps and the sand-hills which border them.

The published references to the subject show hammocks to range from North Carolina to Florida and Mississippi,' and, like many other interesting things, they seem to be strictly confined to the coastal plain. The natives of other parts of the country seem to have no knowledge of such a word, and as no lexicographers, and few writers of any kind, live in the regions where hammocks occur, it is not surprising that this word should be incorrectly treated in all dictionaries.

As for the etymology of' hammock’ (in this geographical sense) I have no suggestions to offer, other than that given by Webster for 'hommock' and 'hummock.' As a hammock as here defined is always characterized by its vegetation rather than by its topography, it can hardly have anything to do with “hum

A case of this kind has occurred in the columns of SCIENCE since the above lines were written and sent to the editor. In the issue of June 16, in the report of a paper I read before the Torrey Botanical Club in April, I am made to say 'hummocks' instead of “hammocks.'

In a paper published by Dr. Arthur Hollick about twenty-five years ago (Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 7: 14, 1880) there is a reference to a “hammock of soapstone and iron ore on Staten Island, which looks like a surprising extension of range; but Dr. Hollick tells me that hummock’ is what he intended to say.

mock, if that is a diminutive of hump, as brass ornaments, and there are others there. seems most likely. Whether there is any con- Four are from Cayuga sites of similar charnection between our hammock and “hammock' acter. Onondaga sites have furnished seven, in the ordinary sense (German Hangematte) of which two are as early as 1600. Seneca perhaps some philologist can tell us. If ‘hom- sites have furnished twenty, mostly made mock' could be universally adopted by the about 1687, with two more which are in a natives of the southeastern coastal plain, then sense prehistoric. Some recent ones have not “hammock’ could be restricted to the familiar been figured. From Oneida sites I remember manufactured article and 'hummock’ to a none, though they should occur there. Two heap of ice or something of that sort; but this others were from Jefferson County, where is obviously out of the question at present. they are certainly rare. One of these may be

Before dismissing the subject I should like classed as early and the other recent. Some to suggest to those botanists who believe in brass beads found on sites there now place giving names of classical derivation to every these in the sixteenth century, as had been kind of plant-habitat, that they find a Latin surmised. Of those enumerated forty were or Greek equivalent for the word under dis- found with European articles, and five may be cussion, and thus do away with all this un- dated anywhere from 1550 to 1600. The , certainty at one stroke, at least as far as bot- earlier and ruder ones were made with stone anists are concerned.

tools; the more elaborate with metallic imRoland M. HARPER. plements. The soundness of my position will COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK,

thus be seen. All known New York combs of June, 1905.

this character seem to have been made be

tween 1550 and 1700, and may be ascribed to INDIAN BONE COMBS.

European contact. A few were made with TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: Some of your stone tools, soon replaced with those of metal, readers may receive the valuable archeological and I certainly do not think it was impossible reports of David Boyle, of Toronto, annually to have made the ruder forms without the made to the minister of education, Ontario. later tools. Why the Indians did not think Mr. Boyle fully believes that the bone combs of these combs before we can not tell. It is found on Indian sites in Canada and New evident they did not till after European conYork are a purely aboriginal idea, while I as tact. firmly hold that this idea came from Euro- Some of the later combs are fine in design, peans. Such differences are common and nat- and Mr. Boyle has given some figures of ural, but the report for 1904 mistakes my Egyptian bone combs, furnished by Wm. position saying:

Flinders Petrie, and there are curious resemThe contention of Dr. Beauchamp is simply this,

blances to those found in New York and that without metallic tools it was impossible to Canada, so many centuries later. One great make a comb, and the inference is that before the value of Mr. Boyle's reports to those laboring appearance of Europeans, the Indians had no use in New York is in the close relations of the for any article of this kind.

fields, so well shown in his long and accurate The latter statement is correct, the former work. an error of my valued friend. If I have made

W. M. BEAUCHAMP. such a statement I gladly retract it. I cer

SYRACUSE, N. Y., tainly do not believe this impossible in a gen

August 11, 1905. eral way, but metallic tools were used in most


I have figures of forty-five of these combs TIE SYSTEMATIC NAME OF TIIE JAPANESE DEER. from Iroquois sites in New York and they are That an author himself has no more right found there on no others as yet. Ten of these to change a systematic name once given by are from Mohawk sites, found with glass and him than any other person is a principle now

« PreviousContinue »