Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

xes.

is determined

ways so applied a specific name nclude its type

lations of Names · is published istributed with nce to a pre

may be the the literature

dies from one specific name binomial has

will do well.

I to indicate ame of the

new generie

published ributed description note) and

name and d descrip

at least

d by its tal menbut not shed.

he same ng preded as

cell, in

pecific

us.

[blocks in formation]

Section 2. Application of Names Article 3. The nomenclatural type of a species is the specimen or the most important of the specimens upon which its original published description was based.

(a) If only one specimen is cited, that is the type.

(b) If one specimen is designated as the type, that specimen shall be so accepted, unless an error can be demonstrated.

(c) A species transferred without change of name from one genus to another retains the original type even though the description under the new genus was drawn from a different species.

(d) The publication of a new specific name as an avowed substitute for an earlier one does not change the type of the species.

(e) When more than one specimen was originally cited and no type was designated the type should be selected in accordance with the following:

1. The type specimen interprets the description and fixes the application of the name, hence, primarily the description controls the selection of the type.

2. The type may be indicated by the specific name, this being sometimes derived from the collector, locality, or host.

3. If one specimen is figured in connection with the original description this may usually be regarded as the type.

4. Specimens that are mentioned by the author as being exceptional or unusual, or those which definitely disagree with the description (provided others agree) may usually be excluded from consideration in selecting the type.

5. An examination of the actual sheets of specimens studied by the author may aid in determining or selecting the type. He may have written the name or left notes or drawings upon one of the sheets.

Note.-Specimens known to have been received by the author subsequent to the study resulting in the original publication should be excluded from consideration.

6. If an author, in publishing a n gives a description of his own, this cedence over synonymy or cited de in determining the type specimen.

Article 4. The nomenclatural ty of a genus is the species or one of included when the genus was published.

(a) If a genus includes but o when originally published this spec type.

(b) When more than one spec cluded in the original publicatio genus, the type is determined by t ing rules: (These rules are Articles the Report of the Committee or Types published in SCIENCE, N. S.. 336, 1919.)

Recommendations: In the fut recommended that authors of gene definitely designate type species; a the selection of types of genera published, but of which the type wo indicated by the preceding rules, ing points be taken into considerati includes Article 7, a to g, of the Generic Types published in SCIENCI

Section 3. Rejection of Na Article 5. A name is rejected (a) When preoccupied (homony 1. A specific name is a homony has been published for another sp the same generic name.

2. A generic name is a hom previously published for another g

3. Similar names are to be homonyms only when they are tions in the spelling of the same the case of specific names, when only in adjective or genitive terr

(b) When there is an older based on another member of the (metonym).

(c) When there is an older based on the same type (typonyr (d) When it has not been effe

lished according to the provisions of Section 1 of these rules (hyponym).

Article 6. There may be exceptions to the application of the principles and rules of this code in cases where a rigid application would lead to great confusion. Such exceptions become valid when approved by the Nomenclature Commission.

Nomenclature Commission

A code of nomenclature should secure uniformity, definiteness and stability in the ap-` plication of names. If proposed rules result in the change of well-established names of economic plants botanists will hesitate to apply them uniformly. All contingencies can not be foreseen and experience has shown that the rigid application of any set of rules results in a few cases of greatly confused nomenclature. The committee has recognized this and hence has introduced an article permitting exceptions. The committee. also recognized that to secure uniformity and definiteness the exceptions should in some way be validated. The most convenient and practical validation would be through a permanent judicial body created for the purpose. As the proposed code invites international support, the judicial body should be an international commission. The committee felt that much could be done to pave the way for future international action by appointing a national commission and therefore tentatively submitted a plan for the creation of such a body. This temporary Nomenclature Commission was to consist of nine members, one nominated by the Society of American Bacteriologists, one nominated by the American Phytopathological Society, three elected by the Botanical Society of America, and four elected by the Committee on Nomenclature of the Botanical Society. The details concerning elections and reappointments are here omitted.

The chairman will add that since a subsequent international commission would feel restricted by the decisions of a national body, it might be well to have these decisions take

the form of recomm
meantime perfectin
methods of procedu
nomenclature, inclu
active fixation of g
a provision for exc
International Com
(generic types ar
would go far toward
and uniform nomer

BUREAU OF PLANT ]
WASHINGTON, D.

SPECIA

A FISH, WITH A LUN
FOR THE GROWTH
IT has been kno
luminous bacteria
and will grow readi
marine organisms.
at times luminous b
forms, such as sand
duced, which is final
its course, causes the
a true luminous for
gested that the light
isms is due to symbi
cells of the luminous
have grown the ba
case of certain squid

While I feel conv case in all luminous had an opportunity which do appear t These are the mari and Anomalops, fou of the Dutch East I have been known to but the organ was f by Steche1 and found of columnar gland t

1 Giard and Billet, 2 Scientia, XXIII., 3 A study made und partment of Marine E of Washington.

4 Zeit. Wiss. Zool., X

, the commission and formulating national rules of -s for the retroes and including ogether with an

validate names a conservanda) botany a stable

HITCHCOCK,
Chairman

ES

AN, DESIGNED
US BACTERIA

Fyears that

t in the sea
fish or other
reported that
infect living
lady is pro-
hich, during
minesce like
i2 has sug-
nous organ-
ving in the
He claims to
lly in the

is not the e recently

wo forms

-ial light.
plepharon
a Islands
to. They
ace 1897,
logically
E a series
of which
93, 1889.

the Destitution

unite to a reservoir which opens to the sea water by a pore. The pores are quite regularly arranged over the outer surface of the organ from which the light emerges.

Despite the general appearance of an organ of external secretion, no luminous material is excreted to the sea water by the living fish. This rather unusual fact has, I believe, its meaning. If the organ is tested in sea water and examined under the microscope, innumerable motile rod-shaped bacteria, sometimes forming spirilla-like chains, can be

seen.

Smears of the organ, which I obtained in Banda, have been very kindly stained for me by Professor Dahlgren, of Princeton University, and show the bacteria nicely.

In chemical respects an emulsion of the organ behaves just as an emulsion of luminous bacteria and differs in one or another way from extracts of other luminous animals. These various characteristics may be summarized as follows:

1. The light organ is extraordinarily well supplied with blood vessels and the emulsion fully as sensitive to lack of oxygen as are luminous bacteria. Light ceases very quickly in absence of oxygen.

2. If dried, the organ will give only a faint light when again moistened with water. This is characteristic of luminous bacteria. The luminous organs of most other forms can be dried without much loss of photogenic power. 3. Luciferin and luciferase can not be demonstrated.

4. The light is extinguished without a preliminary flash by fresh water and other cytolytic (bacteriolytic) agents.

5. Sodium fluoride of 1 to 0.5 per cent. concentration extinguishes readily the light of an emulsion of the gland.

6. Potassium cyanide has an inhibitive effect on light production in about the same concentration as with luminous bacteria.

To these observations must be added the very suggestive fact that the light of Photoplepharon and Anomalops continues night and day without ceasing and quite independently of stimulation. This is a characteristic of luminous bacteria and fungi alone among

an

organisms, and very strongly sugge the light is actually due to symbiot nous bacteria. The organ becomes, incubator for the growth and nourish these forms and we may perhaps lo the pores mentioned above as a m exit for dead bacteria. Otherwise the ance would be inexplicable in an orga certainly does not produce secretion. Actual proof that the bacteria foun organ are luminous can only come wh are grown artificially. My attempts direction have failed. Good growths teria were obtained on pepton-agar produced no light. One might expec symbiotic form would require rather food materials to produce light an perhaps, not surprising that culture ments have failed. We have Giard and experience with the form infecting sa This could be grown artificially but o duced light when infecting the sa themselves. Certainly, the ocular an ical evidence, if not the cultural supports the view that the light of the fish is bacterial in origin. A comp count of the fish will appear shortl Carnegie Institution Publications.

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, March 1, 1921

THE AMERICAN

E. NEWTON H

ASSOCIATIO THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIE SECTION L-HISTORY OF SCIENCE S

THE growing and widespread interest i tory of science, in this country, was ver during the Convocation Week (Decembe uary 1), when two learned national org held meetings in Washington, D. C., and Each of these organizations held sessions history of science.

During the same week in 1919, The Historical Association inaugurated the by holding at its Cleveland meeting, a m esting and successful conference.1 This s

1 SCIENCE, N. S., Vol. LI., pp. 193-194, 20, 1920.

ciation again held a conference in the History of Science at its Washington meeting.2

This year (1920) a similar movement was instituted by the scientists, and the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, through the council, appointed an organizing committee consisting of the following scholars: Dr. William W. Welch, Johns Hopkins University, Dr. A. P. Carman, University of Illinois, Dr. Felix Neumann, Washington, D. C. Dr. George Sarton, Carnegie Institution,

Dr. William A. Locy, temporary chairman, Northwestern University,

Dr. Henry G. Gale, University of Chicago,

Dr. C. Judson Herrick, University of Chicago, Frederick E. Brasch, secretary, John Crerar Library, Chicago.

Through the efforts of this committee the policy of the History of Science section was established. The principal fact to be noted, however, in conjunction with this policy, was the adoption of a plan whereby the function of the program committee was such as to offer the utmost freedom in cooperating and coordinating with existing sections in the American Association. In view of the unique position of the History of Science section relative to the older sections, the relation is such that conflicts of interest are great. Therefore, in order to advance the work and interest of the History of Science, and, at the same time, minimize this conflict-also to meet the growing interest of a large number of scholars both in the technic and history of their respective sciences, the following policy has been approved:

The program shall be flexible, so that such papers as are technical (example-mathematics) in historical treatment be given in sections where they will be most appreciated, and the more general historical papers be given in the special section (History of Science). It is also the opinion of the committee, that papers for this section shall be given by invitation.

This plan was thought most feasible, and has subsequently proven a success, as was evident at the first conference during American Association for the Advancement of Science week.

Consequently, the first joint session was held with Section A (American Mathematical Society and the Mathematical Association of America). Papers were presented by well known scholars in the History of Mathematics. The first was by Dr. Louis C. Karpinski, of the University of Michigan, who presented a most interesting topic,

2 SCIENCE, N. S., Vol. LIII., p. 122, February 4, 1921.

namely: "Geometrical de ideas.''

The purpose of this pap of the fundamental conce progenitors in ideas develo Greeks, the Arabs, and th of Newton, along geome braical problems of the one unknown, the quadrati early solved by geometric dominating "motif" pr geometry lead directly to cubic. The problem of t section of the angle, of the of the conic sections of seven and nine sides, and the circle, all contributed velopment of analytical id

With the Arabs first c appreciation of the algel correspondences, which cu the work of Descartes, wi matics begins.

The second paper was gi Smith, of Columbia Un mathematical work printed

It was supposedly kn mathematical work printe by Isaac Greenwood, fir mathematics and natural College (1727-1738). It 1729. However, it thus Smith's efforts that the printed in America was City, 1556. Of this work, Compendiso," there rema copies. The book consist three folios, generally n Juan Diez, undertook the purpose of assisting those buying of gold and silver moneyed class of Spain. sists of tables relating to various grades of silver, an tary affairs of various ki text consists of twenty-fou arithmetic and algebra. historical importance and sesses, it also has an intere history of education in Am

In the second joint m was presented by Dr. Flor versity of California. His of algebraic notations," w Due to the extremely tech topic, which involved so m and the tracing of the ev the notation by a long study, it is not possible to

3 A full account of this p The American Mathematic January, 1921.

[ocr errors]

stract here. However, Dr. Cajori pointed out that there was danger in having both too few symbols for notations, and also too many. While mathematics is essentially a science of logic by symbols, yet there is a justification for conservative use of such notations.

The most notable fact observed at these joint meetings was the keen interest shown for historical papers, which may be an innovation to the mathematicians and a matter to be considered for future meetings. It only proves too conclusively the value and importance historical papers have within the technical group. Not alone has the cultural phase been emphasized, but there is also the psychological phase. The arduous task of listening to a long series of extremely technical papers is enlivened by a reaction given by some historian's account of a period, a biography or event in mathematical progress.

Wednesday afternoon at 2 o'clock the first single session of the History of Science section took place. After a few brief introductory remarks, concerning the purpose of the History of Science section and a report of the organizing committee, Dr. William A. Locy, temporary chairman, introduced the first speaker, Dr. James H. Breasted, of the Haskels Oriental Museum, University of Chicago, who spoke at length upon "The state of research in early Egyptian science." Dr. Breasted's research has enabled him to point out the large possibilities for greater investigation in the practical unknown Egyptian sciences. His remarks gave one to understand that the future historian of science will have to labor long and hard in the fields from astronomy to medicine and engineering. The question is, where to find the student prepared for this practically unexplored field.

Dr. Walter Libby, professor of the history of medicine, University of Pittsburgh, spoke upon "John Hunter as a forerunner of Darwin." Too little seems to be known of John Hunter (17281793) from the point of view of a biologist. A man self-educated late in life, he rapidly rose to a position in the medical sciences, and became an authority in research into anatomical and physiological problems.

The next paper was "Sir William Osler's last historical discovery," by Mr. J. Christian Bay, medical librarian, John Crerar Library. Osler's last literary investigation was probably one of the most interesting and fascinating pieces of historical discovery of recent date in the History of Science. The place and labors of the mystic philos

opher, Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) is not very well understood in the history of scientific thought. Mr. Bay presented phases of Osler's discovery that were practically unknown; that Cusa possessed some understanding of static electricity, that he performed experiments, and in general was far in advance in ideas bearing upon magnetism. It would thus appear that Cusa preceded William Gilbert (1540-1603) by about 150 years. At the close Mr. Bay paid a beautiful tribute to Sir William Osler, as a man, scholar and scientist.

Owing to the interesting and long discussions provoked by the preceding speakers, the time was growing short, therefore, Dr. Locy's paper was given by title only "The earliest printed book on natural history-1475-1500.''

Dr. Frank B. Dains, of the University of Kansas, presented a paper entitled "Applied chemistry in prehistoric and classical times.'' The work of the early people in the use of bronze, iron and other metal, showed to some extent the possibility of metallurgy being understood. Applied chemistry of the prehistoric people and in classical times ie so little known that the problems of research in the history of science offer immense results. We have very little in the form of written records, but buried treasures as they are brought up by the excavations of archeologists are probably better than the records themselves. Dr. Dains pointed out, as did Dr. Breasted, that the whole history of science before Greek civilization is yet too far in the realm of the unknown.

[ocr errors]

The last paper of this group was 'Early surveying and astronomical instruments in America,' given by Dr. Florian Cajori, who, with the aid of illustrated views, showed a remarkably interesting collection of instruments imported, and also constructed in this country. The most complete and well constructed coast and geodetic survey instruments made for the early survey in the United States were those of Ferdinand R. Hassler. A Swiss surveyor of excellent training gave to this country his best talent and consequently laid a foundation for future work that has not been revised or repeated. Dr. Cajori brought out many interesting facts and views in relation to Hassler that were entirely new to the history of science in America.

Thursday morning was devoted to the remaining part of the single session of the History of Science section. The papers presented at this time were of much longer duration. Dr. W. Carl Rufus, of the Detroit Observatory, University of Michigan,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »