sion is unavoidable and it certainly would seem advisable to restrict the term ovum to its comparative embryological significance. But this restriction leaves us without a designation for the whole product of conception. For this the word conceptus fortunately seems to be available. It is not new, and does not sound particularly well in the plural but we have other similar words in long established usage to which the latter objection applies. The term conceptus has the advantage of being applicable throughout the entire period of gestation. It may seem that we should make use of the word conception, but a recent experience illustrates some of the difficulties which we are sure to encounter in adopting it. A proofreader for example, of a manuscript recently published, substituted the word conception for conceptus in a part of the manuscript. Because of delay in the mails and because of other things, an opportunity was not afforded to make the necessary changes before publication. Hence, in one sentence in which it was stated that a number of conceptuses were examined, it now is stated that so many conceptions were examined. The latter may imply: (1) that a given number of fertilizations were examined, (2) or that a certain number of individuals in the early months of pregnancy were examined, (3) or that abortuses were examined. Yet, none of these things was meant. None of the American medical or nonmedical dictionaries accessible to me here at Stanford University defined the word conception as referring to the thing conceived, except in the sense of mental conception. Murray, however, does recognize the use of the word in the sense of embryo or fetus, but since this usage is rare even in English medical literature and also foreign to us, it probably would be wiser not to try to revive an old meaning. Moreover, such a revival would not obviate the possibility of misunderstanding. Hence, an unequivocal term such as conceptus seems preferable. At present the word embryo frequently is used to designate conceptuses in the earlier months of gestation. It is used still more frequently to designate merely the body of the developing individual during the early stages, in contrast to the word fetus, which is applied in the later months of pregnancy. Hence, we have need for still another term to be used in common for the embryonic disc, the embryo, or the fetus. My former colleague, Dr. Adolph Schultz, has kindly called my attention to the word kyema. I was happy to learn from my friend Professor Foster, that it is excellent Greek and was used in the proposed sense by no less than Plato1 himself. It was used in this sense also by Æschylus.2 Professor Foster, however, suggests, that we preferably spell the word cyema. This term of Plato's also has the advantage of being available for comparative embryology and of being adapted to meet such needs as are represented by the terms cyemetric and cyemology. At present, no one can know what is meant when one says that there are no embryonic remnants present. The addition of the word cyema would largely avoid this difficulty. It is not my purpose to suggest that the long established term embryology shall be abandoned or displaced, in spite of the fact that the derivative embryometrics is somewhat misleading. The same thing, to be sure, will remain true of the term embryology as long as we continue to use the term embryo in a restricted sense and in contrast to fetus. In these respects the derivatives of cyema would be preferable, it seems to me. Although the word abortion is available to designate the individual thing or the material aborted, it has not been the custom to use it in this inclusive sense. As now used, the word invariably is restricted to apply to the act itself. To use it in a double sense would lead to some confusion. Since blood clot, pus, decidua and mucosa, usually not only are included with but frequently also surround the entire conceptus, one could use the word abortus to designate all the material expelled during abortion. It is only in this or a similar way that one can avoid the use of such misleading words as mole, and such expressions 1 Rep. 461C. 2 Aesch. Eum. 659. as the entire mass, embryonic mass, abortion mass or quite inaccurately even the chorionic vesicle when the latter is surrounded by a certain amount of decidua and blood clot even! I trust that readers will generously remember that I am aware that change may not imply immediate improvement or progress, but the absence of it surely never does. I realize full well that the use of unnecessary terms is to be avoided, but this is equally true of awkward circumlocution and misunderstand ing. When anyone writes or says, at present, that no embryonic remnants were present or that he has seen an interesting abortion, it is impossible to know what he means. Although the word embryo could by common consent be used in the proposed sense of cyema, long usage probably would make such an attempt futile for this reason alone. The introduction of this term and of the others suggested does not needlessly change old usage. It abrogates nothing save confusion. Since I recently happened upon the term cubus, which the ancient Greeks (Athenæus) used for what I have designated as the preiliac fossa3 in bovines, sheep, goats and horses, I take pleasure in recording this incidental finding. At the time I suggested the above term nothing but the German designation "Hungergrube" was known to me. None of the works on veterinary medicine and anatomy in English, which were accessible to me gave a name for this fossa. Since the term cubus seems rather far fetched, at least to one unfamiliar with its origin, I can not recommend the term cubical fossa. At the suggestion of the late Professor Mall, who was ever ready to welcome and accept whatever answered a need, I am prompted also in this connection to say a few words in explanation and justification for several titles I have used in scientific papers. One of these titles is the old one of Spolia Anatomica.⭑ Some of my friends have taken exception to this title and others have felt prompted to twit me! The objection apparently is to the 8 Am. Jr. Anat., Vol. 21, 1917. 4 Jr. Anat. Physiol., Vol. 48, 1914; Anat. Rec., Vol. 9, 1915, and Vol. 12, 1917. word spolia. I used it in an inclusive sense to represent observations and descriptions of anomalies from the dissecting room and such as I happened upon while engaged in investigation. All of the things reported under this head were essentially anatomic windfalls. Since they were incidental to the work of the student of anatomy and the dissecting room, or that of the anatomist in his laboratory, they certainly could with entire propriety be called by-products or leftovers-spolia. That is exactly what they were. This use is an old and not a new one. In fact, such use is not new even in modern literature of anatomy. If I am informed rightly, the skin, horns and hoofs, and so forth, were regarded as the spolia or by-products of slaughtering, and this they remain to this day. Likewise, the shield and sword and armor of the fallen combatant were the spolia or the by-products of the gladiatorial combat. They too were removed in the spoliary or spoliarum. And even in the chase and, for that matter, in many wars of the past the spoils were the by-products, not the aim. To have interchanged the two is a very recent and lamentable thing. I am also reminded, and very gladly so, that there still are those to whom the spoils of angling and the chase remain incidental and the love of these sports, the aim. While I must insist then that the use of the term spolia anatomica, is strictly correct, I can not commend it very highly. It tells no more about the content of a paper than the wastebasket does of its content, and it makes proper indexing difficult. Consequently, unless, as generously done by the "Index Medicus," all sub-titles of an article so designated are listed separately, no one knows what has been reported under such an omnibus title. Usually the things so reported really do not attract the attention of those who would be interested in them. Furthermore, in these days of counting titles in order to gage a man's productivity, one inclusive title makes a very poor showing in place of three or four scores of separate ones. Yet in spite of all these disadvantages, I chose the term advisedly and do not propose to desert it merely because I used it in other than the predominating sense. I have also been guilty of using the term osteology redivivus. I did this with full knowledge of the fact that well recognized English writers had used it in similar connection in other than anatomic literature. George William Curtis used it thus in American literature. Nor did I stop here for I sought the advice and the approval of one of the foremost philologists in this country, a man of international standing for several decades, who after looking the matter up said I would be following good precedent in using it. I have used these terms then and am suggesting others now, not because I desire to appear versed in Latin and Greek, but because they express what I want to say, and fill a need. They are free as the mountain breezes and at the service of anyone who, like myself, knows none better. May those who do, make me and the science of embryology their debtors. A. W. MEYER STANFORD UNIVERSITY THE ROOSEVELT WILD-LIFE FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION NEVER before in America, and for that matter, possibly, never before in the world, has there been a forest biological station devoted primarily or exclusively to the study of every phase of forest wild life. The establishment of such a station at The New York State College of Forestry, at Syracuse University, is thus an event of considerable general interest and importance, not only to those interested in the conservation of wild life, to foresters, and to zoologists in general, and particularly to field naturalists, but in addition to many others who are interested in the ecology of fish, birds, game, fur-bearing animals, and other kinds of forest wild life. This station, named in honor of the man, a native of the state of New York, who, with Gifford Pinchot, did more for forestry and forest wild life than any one else has done, thus becomes a very appropriate memorial to Theodore 5 Anat. Rec., Vol. 8, 1914. Roosevelt. Further, this station is the direct outcome of plans, started in December, 1916, with the cooperation and hearty support of Theodore Roosevelt, for the investigation of forest animals. The establishment of the present station, as a memorial to his father, has had the hearty support of Lieutenant-Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., who writes: I think your ideas are excellent and I know that my father would appreciate no type of memorial more than that which you suggest, as you know it was one of the subjects that was always uppermost in his mind. I give my consent without reservation for the use of his name for this memorial. As suggested above this idea of a Roosevelt Wild Life Memorial is the only one of the suggested memorials, known to me, which comes so near the direct approval of Theodore Roosevelt. Plans for the study of forest wild life, as stated above, were presented to him in December, 1916, and received his characteristic approval with enthusiasm and energy. He suggested that they be taken up "in a big way," commensurate with their importance, and in these words we know the kind of memorial which is worthy of the man. In New York state the forest land and fresh water area nearly equals that of the tilled land, so that the proper care, management, and use of forest wild life is one of the large economic and social problems, and it is this same wild life which is one of the two main sources of income which finances conservation in New York state. Thus on economic grounds alone New York state would be fully justified in establishing such a station. The character of the problems involved in the study of forest wild life in these millions of acres of forest lands and waters are similar in many respects to those involved in varied wild life preserves and sanctuaries, in our National Forests and in our National Parks. The function of this station, as defined by the New York law is: To establish and conduct an experimental station to be known as "Roosevelt Wild-Life Forest Experimental Station" in which there shall be maintained records of the results of the experi ments and investigations made and research work accomplished; also a library of works, publications, papers and data having to do with wild life together with means for practical illustration and demonstration, which library shall, at all seasonable hours, be open to the public. Furthermore, the duties of the station are to make "investigations, experiments and research in relation to the habits, life histories, methods of propagation and management of fish, birds, game and food and fur-bearing animals and forest wild life." This is a very comprehensive program and it opens up an immense field for investigation, for demonstration, and for the training of forest and park naturalists. Not the least important feature of the plan is that it provides for an establishment which will supplement the other equipment of the college in such a manner as to make unique facilities not only for research on wild life, but likewise for the training of students who wish to specialize in this kind of ecological study, either for the purposes of becoming technical forest naturalists and investigators, or as foresters interested in the development and practical management of fish and game in forests, and as well for similar work in parks, particularly in the National Parks. The law passed in the Legislature so late in the session that no special appropriation was made available, but the experiment station funds of the college are available to make a start at once. Quarters will be provided at the college and at the college experiment station at Syracuse. Such a wild life repository library as is contemplated by the law, would be unique as no such special library has been assembled in America, and would be of much general value. As examples of the kind of problems which need attention, the following may be cited: We need to know much more about the life histories and habits of all of our large game, fur-bearing, and predaceous forest animals. Such a knowledge is an essential basis for sane legislation, and the proper care and use of such animals. Even such a common forest animal as the porcupine is really but little known. There are numerous problems on the relation of birds to forests that require detailed study. This is equally true of the game birds. The problem of stocking lakes and streams with game fish involves a great number of zoological problems that have not been investigated intensively. There are also many unsolved problems in connection with the production of food from forest lands and waters, involving many kinds of wild and even domestic animals, which can be best studied at such a station. It is expected that this memorial, while receiving support from the Legislature of New York, will draw support as well from those private citizens throughout the nation who are admirers of Roosevelt and his conservation policies, and who are also in sympathy with the study of game and other wild life, and who recognizing the need of such a station will enable it to extend its work beyond the borders of the state. The establishment of this state memorial has been brought about by the friends of Mr. Roosevelt and those of the State College of Forestry, and from their very inception these plans have had the hearty support of the dean of the college, Dr. Hugh P. Baker. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Director THE ROOSEVELT WILD LIFE FOREST GABRIEL MARCUS GREEN1 GABRIEL MARCUS GREEN was born in the city of New York, on October 19, 1891. He attended the public schools of that city, graduating from Public High School No. 4 in 1904 as valedictorian of his class. He then entered the high school department of the College of the City of New York and in 1911 graduated from the college at the head of his class: In 1909 he received the Belden 1 Minute on the life and services of Dr. Green placed upon the records of the faculty of arts and sciences of Harvard University at the meeting of April 1, 1919. Mathematical Prize; in 1909 and 1910, the Pell Medal for the highest rank in all subjects; and in 1910 and 1911, the Kenyon Prize for Distinction in Pure and Applied Mathematics. He pursued his graduate studies at Columbia University, where he took the degree of master of arts in 1912 and doctor of philosophy in 1913. His thesis was entitled "Projective Differential Geometry of Triple Systems of Surfaces," and was a remarkable achievement, for he had, unaided, made himself master of this new field of geometry by independent study and added to it an important contribution. He was a member of the Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Xi societies. Dr. Green returned to his college the following year as instructor in mathematics. In 1914 he was appointed to an instructorship at Harvard, and in 1916 became a member of the faculty. Clear, interesting, vivacious, he imparted to his hearers an understanding of the subjects treated which served as a firm foundation for future study. In research he was exceedingly productive, and, brief as was the span accorded him for his scientific labors, he had by a notable series of memoirs contributed largely to the present development of his special field of projective differentia! geometry. His appreciation of music was extraordinary. Although he had never had formal instruction, he had made himself a skilled pianist, and had sought expression in original compositon. His disposition was genial. He was emotional and sensitive, and at the same time sympathetic and unselfish. For such a nature, the craving for the harmony of a homogeneous civilization with its uniform ethical ideals and the mutual understanding of its members must have been intense. Green found himself a member of two civilizations, and he was not spared the pain of incessant clashes of their ideals and habits of thought. But the fineness of his spirit and the nobleness of his character were such that, in the turmoil, he remained serene and grew in strength of mind and soul. High ambition and untiring energy, combined with great intellectual gifts, and a fine sense of duty toward his fellowmen, were the basis of his success. An attack of influenza was followed by pneumonia, and he died at the Stillman Infirmary on January 24, 1919. The department lost in him a faithful fellow-worker and friend; the faculty, a teacher of unusual power, and a scientist of high achievement and higher promise. WILLIAM F. OSGOOD, LEO WIENER, DUNHAM JACKSON, Committee SCIENTIFIC EVENTS INTER-ALLIED COOPERATION IN CHEMISTRY1 PROFESSOR MOUREU presided over the recent conference in Paris, and among his French colleagues were Professors Haller, Béhal and Matignon, MM. Kestner, Poulenc, Marquis and Gérard. The British delegates were Professors Louis, Sir William Pope, Messrs. Chaston Chapman, W. F. Reid, E. Thompson and S. Maill. America was represented by Mr. Henry Wigglesworth, Lieutenant-Colonels Bartow, Norris and Zanetti, Dr. Cottrell and Major Keyes; Italy by Senator Paternò, Drs. Pomilio, Giordani and Parodi-Delfino; and Belgium by MM. Chavanne and Crismer. It was unanimously decided to form an Inter-Allied Federal Council of not more than six representatives of each of the countries mentioned above, the members to hold office for three years, one third to retire annually and be eligible for reelection. The executive body is to consist of a president, a vice-president, and a general secretary. Mr. Jean Gérard will provisionally act as the secretary. In addition to the council a consultative committee will be formed, consisting of as many sections as may be necessary to secure the complete representation of pure and applied chemistry. The objects of the confederation are: To strengthen the bonds of esteem and friendship existing during the war between the Allied peoples; to organize permanent cooperation between the associations of the Allied nations; to coordinate their scientific and technical resources; and to contribute 1 From Nature. |