THE ORIGIN OF NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURE.

AMONG the Americanists of Europe, Dr. Eduard Seler easily ranks in the first class. He is lecturer on American archæology in the University of Berlin, and his numerous writing are of the most solid merit. Two recent articles by him are significant. One in Globus' (Vol. 65, No. 20), entitled 'Where was Aztlan?' was inspired by Mr. Wickersham's aticle in 'SCIENCE,' December 8, 1893, in which that writer endeavored to discover 'Asiatic analogies' between the Aztecs, the Puget Sound Indians and various Asian tribes. Seler's second article is broader. It is entitled 'On the Origin of the Ancient Civilization of America,' and appears in the Preussische Jahrbücher (Vol. 79, 1895).

In these able and pointed papers he sums up with masterly force the arguments which prove that the culture of ancient America in all its details was indigenous, starting at various centers independently, and in no item or shred derived from instructors from across the ocean or across Bering Straits. 'American science,' he pertinently says, 'can only win by giving up once for all the vain attempts to construct imaginary connections between the cultures of the old and new continents,' and he points out clearly that this independence of historic connection is what lends to American archæology its greatest importance.

In singular and sad contrast to these truly scientific views are the efforts of a local school of American students to rehabilitate the time-worn hypotheses of Asiatic and Polynesian influences in the native cultures of our continent. The present leader of this misdirected tendency is Professor O. T. Mason, whose articles in the International Archives of Ethnography' and in the American Anthropologist,' bearing on this question do the utmost credit to his extensive learning and the skill with which he can bring it to bear in a lost cause. His

latest, entitled 'Similarities of Culture' (Amer. Anthrop. April, 1895), is so excellent an effort that it is all the more painful to see its true intent is to bolster up a moribund chimera. It is to be hoped that they will not influence the younger workers in the field to waste their energies in pursuing these will-o'-the-wisps of science which will only lead them to bootless quests.

ARCHEOLOGICAL NEWS FROM SWITZERLAND.

Two or three years ago the curious discovery was made in Switzerland that at one time, during the neolithic period, a dwarf race, true pygmies, flourished in Europe. The bones of a number of them were unearthed at Schweizersbild, near Schaffhausen, in connection with polished stone implements and pottery. The average height of the adults was about 140 centimeters, close to that of the Bushmen. They apparently lived along with other tribes of ordinary stature, as the remains of both were found together. The cubical capacity of the skull was about 1200 c.c. Several anatomists have given the skeletons close attention, notably Professor J. Kollman, of Basel, in the Verhandlungen der Anatomischen Gesellschaft,' May, 1894, who appends to hispaper a bibliogrophy of articles relating tothe find.

The abundant richness of Switzerland as an archæological field is strikingly shown by an archæological map of the canton Zurich, prepared by Dr. J. Heierli, and just published in the city of the name. It is very neatly printed in colors, showing by the tint the relative age of the station, whether neolithic, Roman, Allemannian, etc. The author has added a pamphlet of explanations and an index, so as to familiarize students with the local sites and what they signify. It is heartily to be wished that some State of our country would follow this excellent example and thus lead to a more intelligent comprehension and a better preservation of the antiquities on our soil.

SOUTH AMERICAN TRIBES AND LANGUAGES.

IN the February number of the Journal of the Anthropological Institute, Mr. Clements R. Markham, republishes his 'List of Tribes in the valley of the Amazon,' which first appeared about twenty years ago. Of course there are many improvements in the enumeration; but it is amazing to note that by far the best recent authorities are not referred to, and their material is ignored. In the list of authorities' there is no mention, for instance, of the names of Von Den Steinen, Ehrenreich or Barbosa Rodriguez. For the linguistics he quotes Dr. Latham as still the authority. In fact, the best work done in Amazonian ethnography within the last decade is not mentioned nor utilized.

Some interesting studies in the languages of the Argentine Republic should not. be overlooked. The Allentiac was a language, now extinct, spoken in the vicinity of San Juan de la Frontera. A little catechism, grammar and vocabulary of it was printed by Father Louis de Valdivia in 1607, of which only one perfect copy is known. This

has been edited with a useful introduction

by José T. Medina (Sevilla, 1894), and has been made the subject of a neat study by General Bartolome Mitré (Estudio Bibliografico linguistico de las Obras de Valdivia, La Plata, 1894; pp. 153). He inclines to consider it a separate stock.

The well-known Argentine linguist, Samuel A. Lafone Quevedo, has added another to the list of his valuable monographs by a thorough study of the mysterious Lule language (Los Lules; Estudio Filologico, Buenos Aires, 1894, pp. 145). It is based, of course, on the grammar of Machoni, and reaches the conclusion that the modern are not the ancient Lules, and Machoni's grammar is that of a tongue which belongs with the Quichuan group, and not among those of the Gran Chaco.

D. G. BRINTON.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

CORRESPONDENCE.

A LARGE REFLECTOR FOR THE LICK

OBSERVATORY.

MR. EDWARD CROSSLEY, F. R. A. S., of Halifax, England, has offered to present his 3-foot reflecting telescope to the Lick Observatory with its apparatus and dome, complete. The grateful thanks of the Observatory are returned for this generous and highly appreciated gift.

EDWARD S. HOLDEN. MOUNT HAMILTON, April 4, 1895.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.

Alternating Generations. A Biological Study of Oak Galls and Gall Flies. By HERMAN Translated ADLER, M. D. Schleswig. and edited by CHARLES R. STRATON. New York, Macmillan & Co. The recent appearance, from the Clarendon of an edition of Dr. Herman Adpress, ler's celebrated work, which was published some fourteen years ago, on alternating generations among the Cinipida, being a biological study of oak galls and gall-flies, will be welcomed by all interested in the subject, especially by those who do not read German or French. The English translation is by Charles R. Straton. The work consists of: (1) an introduction by the editor; (2) the translation proper, to which the editor has added, in brackets and in smaller type, the popular English name of the gall, the particular oak upon which it is found, and a list of the inquilines and parasites that have been reared from each species; (3) as Appendix I., by the editor, a full account of Cynips kollari Hartig; (4) as Appendix II., a synoptical table of oak galls; (5) as Appendix III., a classification of the Cynipidæ, and (6) a bibliography.

The synoptical table of oak-galls (Cynipidæ alone included) is based on European species; while the classification includes not only European but a certain number of

the older American species, but it is very imperfect in taking no note of the many later described American species, especially those described by Ashmead and Gillette. The classification is based on Mayr's, as was that given in Lichtenstein's translation of 1881, and comparatively few additional species are included.

The introduction is very full and includes a discussion of heredity and a rather full summary of late embryologic work, with a view of getting a clearer conception of the philosophy of alternation in generations. Mr. Straton particularly discusses Weismann's views, but by no means accepts them, though a thorough believer himself in natural selection.

Straton points out "that galls may be arranged in groups of greatly increasing complexity and that they must have arisen by gradual and complete improvements in the initial stages of their formation, acting through natural selection over an unlimited period of time and through numerous consecutive species." Each infinitesimal improvement in the gall itself, internally or externally, which has been of service as a protection against parasites or as favoring the development of the larva, has been preserved. In this view of the case, which is one that certainly seems most reasonable, the various characteristics of galls, such as spines, prickles, glutinous secretions, induration, and even size and coloration, are all acquired characteristics for the protection of the larva within. This theory is certainly justified in a large number of cases, but is equally at fault in many others. It would be hard to conceive that the bright colors which many galls assume in an early stage of development or the succulent character and pleasantly sub-acid or fruity flavor of others which renders them so prone to be invaded and preyed upon by a host of other insects could have any relation to the benefits of the gall-maker within. Here, as

in most other natural history phenomena, natural selection can hardly be considered an all-sufficient explanation. Likewise, the assumed protective colors which galls often take on in autumn will find more valid explanation in the same causes which produce the similar changes in the leaves themselves, which can have no reference to the welfare of the plant.

No subject connected with galls has perhaps been more written about than the inciting cause of their formation. Adler and Byerinck effectually disproved the older belief that the exciting poison was inserted by the parent in the act of oviposition, i. e., that the initial force was due either to a chemical secretion injected by the gallmother or to the mechanical stimulus of traumatic irritation. A fluid is secreted in the act of oviposition, but it is absolutely unirritating and acts primarily as a lubricant to facilitate the arduous mechanical act and probably also as a mild antiseptic dressing to the wound made in the plant. Nevertheless there is an irritating salivary secretion produced by the larva itself and the gall growth is co-incident with the hatching and feeding of this larva. The fact that the influence on the plant tissues sometimes begins before the egg-shell is ruptured indicates that this fluid possesses amylolytic and proteolytic ferments. That the influence should be slightly exerted prenatally is not to be wondered at when we consider the delicate nature of the egg covering which often makes it difficult to observe the dividing line between the egg and newly hatched larva.

While, therefore, it is the larva in the Cynipida which causes the gall, this is not the case with the many other gall-producing insects, since many of the gall-gnats (Cecidomyidae) and most, if not all, of the gall-making saw-flies (Tenthredinidæ) secrete a poison in the plant tissue in the act of oviposition, causing the gall to form be

fore the larva hatches. One must, therefore, in reading Straton's Introduction, bear in mind that he is treating solely of the Cynipidæ. Adler himself recognizes the fact, so far as the Tenthredinida are concerned, from observations on Nematus vallisnerii, which produces a gall on Salix amigdalina; but in sweepingly denying it for the gallgnats (p. 100), on the score that they have no piercing apparatus, he makes one of those generalizations which the facts do not justify, as most of the gall-making species have a very effective and specialized piercing ovipositor. This is, of course, not homologically comparable to that of the Hymenoptera, but is no more exceptional than is the wonderful piercing apparatus of Pronuba among Lepidoptera, being, like this last, a modification of the tubular tip of the abdomen and of the chitinous rods connected therewith.

Adler shows very conclusively that, in spite of the great variation in form, size, appearance and manner of formation, or whether they grow from bud, blossom, leaf, bark or root, galls spring invariably from the zone of formative cells or the cambium ring, just as indeed does the whole life of the plant. These cells are the theatre of actual metabolism. They are not differentiated into stable tissue, but await a period of developmental activity and possess the very conditions essential to gall formation. This explains the fact that Cynipid galls formed from punctures in the leaf almost always begin on the under surface of the leaf, since the cells of the upper surface have become stable and do not respond to any irritation applied to them; while when the eggs are laid in a dormant bud containing rudimentary leaves consisting of unmodified cells, both surfaces may take part in gall formation, the resulting gall, in such case, growing through the leaf substance. Again, when the egg is laid in the cambium ring of the bark, there is a sharp zonal con

trast in the resulting gall between the soft and sappy parenchymatous cells and a harder central zone of wood parenchyma corresponding to the bast and to the wood parenchyma, the softer parts of the gall projecting from the bark while its woody base penetrates into the woody tissue.

From the above facts we come to understand why from winter buds, i. e., where eggs are laid during winter in a bud that is dormant, only bud galls are produced, while from buds pierced in spring, when metabolism has begun, we get leaf-galls. Moreover, it has been proved by Adler, and explains the many failures in the efforts to obtain gall growths by confining gall-flies upon the plants, that if the parent fly fails to reach the formative zone of cambium cells the larva on hatching perishes without forming a gall. Another interesting fact which the writer has observed is that where but one bud-gall is usually produced several eggs are nevertheless inserted in the bud by the parent, a prodigality not uncommon in insects under similar circumstances, and which has some profound significances which we cannot discuss in this connection,

On the question as to what determines the ultimate growth of each particular gall so characteristic of its species Adler ventures no theory or explanation; but all the facts would indicate that it depends on the specific quality of the larval secretion, each having its distinct form of morbid poison working in the same pathologic way as the virus of the various eruptive diseases of man. Bacteriology may, in fact, yet come to our aid in this connection, as it has in the study of the pathologic manifestations of higher animals.

The process of oviposition in the Cynipida is a very elaborate one and has been much written about. Adler gives a most full and elaborate description of the mechanism of the ovipositor, and particularly of the ventral plates and bundles of muscles by which

the terebra is worked. The structure of the ovipositor is well known and its parts homologize with those of the same organ in all Hymenoptera. It consists of a large bristle or seta, and of two spicule which mortise into it by means of two tenons and form the channel down which the egg passes. The seta occupies half the area of a transverse section of the terebra, and the two spiculæ occupy the other half. The seta has a central canal which contains an air vessel, a nerve branch and some sanguineous fluid. While appearing like a single piece, it is in reality double or composed of two parts which, indeed, are separated at the extreme base, but otherwise firmly soldered together. The spiculæ are serrate or notched near the tip, and the seta often ends in a slight hook. The two spiculæ play by means of strong basal muscles, longitudinally up and down on the tenons of the seta.

The eggs of Cynipidæ are characterized by having a stalk or pedicel of varying length according to the species, the egg-body proper, according to Adler, being at the apical or anterior end which first issues from the body, and the posterior end being also somewhat enlarged or spatulate. In repose the ovipositor is concealed within two sheaths, but in oviposition, according to Hartig's views, the spiculæ grasp the eggstalk and push it to the tip, the fluids in the egg-body being pressed back in the operation, so that they come to be distributed along the stalk or to lie at the opposite or posterior pole of the stalk. The spicule then slightly separate at the tip from the seta and extend beyond it so that the apical end of the stalk becomes free. Now by pressure the fluid at the posterior end passes back through the stalk into the opposite or apical end which is plunged in the plant, the basal portion becoming emptied, the swollen apical end thus remaining in the plant when the ovipositor is withdrawn, fill

ing the distal end of the puncture, which is somewhat enlarged. The empty basal sack of the egg and a portion of the stalk are often left exposed, looking not unlike the empty egg of some lace-wing fly (Hemerobiid).

In short, Hartig's view, very generally adopted, was that the extensile and ductile egg was driven through the ovipositor itself while this was in the plant, and that the contents of the egg-body were pressed back into the egg-stalk or pedicel during the operation and collected in the posterior end, and only after the apical end had reached the bottom of the puncture did these contents stream back into it. Adler would refute this view and draws attention to his own figures on Plate 3, where the eggs and ovipositor are illustrated side by side, all taken from photographs and drawn from the same amplification. These show that the ovipositor is, in every case, longer than the egg itself, the enlarged head of the egg corresponding in direction to the tip of the ovipositor. He argues from this fact that one end of the egg cannot be in the plant tissue while the other is in the canal. He further argues that it is not possible that the whole egg can be received into the ovipositor and glide through it in the way in which Hartig supposed. The operation of oviposition according to his observations consists of three distinct stages: (1) The canal in the plant is first bored, after which the fly rests; (2) the egg is then passed from the ovarium to the entrance or base of the ovipositor, the anterior swollen end or eggbody hanging out, since it is too large to be passed down the channel. It is then pushed along by means of the egg-stalk behind being grasped between the two spiculæ. (3) Finally, when the egg-body reaches the perforation, the ovipositor is partially withdrawn and the whole egg is then pushed in till the egg-body reaches the bottom of the puncture. Adler rightly expresses wonder