Cumston, C. G. The History of Medicine from the time of the Pharaohs to the end of the 18th century. 1926.

Complete Histories:

Garrison, F. H. History of Medicine, 3rd Ed. Saunders, 1924.

Packard, F. A. History of Medicine in the U. S. Lippincott, 1901.

Neuburger. History of Medicine (2 Vols. and incomplete). Oxford Publications, 1910-1925. Daremberg, C. Histoire des Sciences Médicales. Paris, 1870.

Meunier. Histoire de la Médecine. Paris, 1924. Baas. Leitfaden der Geschichte der Medizin. Stuttgart, 1880. (Translated by Handerson, '89.) Meyer-Steineg, und Sudhoff. Geschichte der Medizin, 2nd Ed. Fischer, Jena, 1922.

Haeser. Geschichte der Medizin, 3 Vol. 3rd Ed. Jena, 1875.

Pagel. Geschichte der Medizin. Berlin, 1898 (revised, Sudhoff-1915).

Freind, J. The History of Physick. London, 1725. Isis. The Journal of the History of Science Society. G. Sarton, Editor. Harvard.

"An attempt to fix, arrange, and name the individual races of Lepidoptera, submitted by Jacob Hübner to experts for examination and the expression of an opinion." At the end the author adds a warning, "Ne expectet quis, ordinem hunc nullam amplius correctionem esse desideraturum, verumtamen magis satisfaciet necessitati, quam prævius quivis. Familiis indicandis supersedere malui." This warning says: "Let no one expect that this arrangement makes further correction undesirable, but it will more nearly satisfy necessity than anything which has gone before. I have preferred to place [it, i.e., 'the order of Stirpes'] above the families, which are to be indicated."

In order to understand what Hübner meant it is necessary to understand the system of classification which he employed. It was an advance upon that originally proposed by Linnæus. Linnæus in his "Systema Natura" established among the insects the order Lepidoptera to include the butterflies and moths. Linnæus set up only three genera: Papilio, Sphinx, and Phalana. Into these three genera he

EXIT HUEBNER'S TENTAMEN! ALL lepidopterists having a thorough knowledge of the nomenclature of their science will welcome Opinion No. 97, recently handed down by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (See SCIENCE, LXV, p. 301.) This opinion should terminate for all time the contention concerning Hübner's "Tentamen," long ago thought to have been settled, but which recently has been revived in certain quarters.

Hübner's "Tentamen" is a small quarto sheet issued by Jacob Hübner, of Augsburg. The title is: "Tentamen determinationis digestionis atque denominationis singularum stirpium Lepidopterorum, peritis ad inspiciendum et dijudicandum communicatum, a Jacobo Hübner." Literally translated, the title is

and ninety-two species under Papilio; thirty-eight species under Sphinx, and three hundred and five species of moths under Phalana. Linnæus himself recognized the incongruities arising from thus throwing together a multitude of forms into but three categories, or genera, as he called them. He attempted to bring about a subdivision by resorting to quadrinomials, intercalating fanciful and grotesque subdivisions, which exact systematists with more time and material at their command later have discarded, or modified, adopting some of the names he employed as generic and reducing his quadrinomials to binomials. But this does not concern us at this point. The system adopted by Hübner involved a number of subdivisions. It is as follows:

Order LEPIDOPTERA

a. Phalanges (Germanice Horden; Anglice hordes) = SUBORDERS, in modern parlance.

b. He divided the Phalanges, or Hordes, into Tribus (Germanice Rotten; Anglice tribes) = SUPERFAMILIES.

c. He subdivided the Tribus into Stirpes (Germanice Stämme; Anglice races, or clans) = FAMILIES, as now used.

d. He subdivided the Stirpes or races, into Familiæ (Germanice Familien; Anglice families) = SUBFAMILIES, as now used.

e. He subdivided the Families into Coitus (Germanice Vereine; Anglice unions) = GENERA in the Linnæan sense.

f. He subdivided the Coitus into Genera (Germanice Arten; Anglice kinds, or species) = SPECIES in the Linnæan sense, and as now employed.

The "Tentamen" was issued as a preliminary inquiry, bearing upon a work contemplated by the author to be issued in the future. This work is the "Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge," published by Hübner in 1816. In its production he largely followed the arrangement of the "Stirpes" suggested by him in the "Tentamen," as he tells us in his introduction, adding: "I made known [the Tentamen] to the end that it might be examined and passed upon by experts before I adopted it."

On examining the "Verzeichniss" we find that he employs the "Stirpes" names, many of which he had suggested in the "Tentamen." He adds a great many "family-names," as promised in the warning at the foot of the "Tentamen." The arrangement of the butterflies in the "Tentamen" is as follows:

LEPIDOPTERA

Phalanx I. Papiliones
Tribus I; nymphales

I. Nerëides Nerëis Polymnia.
II. Limnades-Limnas Chrysippus.
III. Lemoniades-Lemonias Maturna.
IV. Dryades-Dryas Paphia.

V. Hamadryades-Hamadryas Jo. VI. Najades-Najas Populi. VII. Potomides-Potamis Iris. VIII. Oreades-Oreas Proserpina.

Tribus II; gentiles

I. Rustici-Rusticus Argus. II. Principes-Princeps Machaon. III. Mancipia-Mancipium Brassica. IV. Consules-Consul Fabius.

V. Urbani-Urbanus Malvæ.

Turning from the "Tentamen" to the "Verzeichniss" we find under Stirps I, Nerëides, which he cites as equivalent to Heliconii Linn., that the name Nerëis nowhere occurs! We find the names Hymenitis, Ithomia, Oleria, Eueides, Mechanitis, etc. The specific name polymnia Linnæus given in the "Tentamen," in the "Verzeichniss" appears under the genus (Coitus) Mechanitis, and there it has remained for one hundred and ten years since Hübner published the "Verzeichniss," as every systematist knows.

Taking up Stirps II proposed in the "Tentamen," the Limnades, we find that the generic (coitus) name Limnas does not anywhere occur in the "Verzeichniss," but we find under the Limnades such wellknown generic names as Amauris, Hestia, Euplæa, Anosia, etc. The species Chrysippus L. is found in the genus Euploa!

Stirps III of the "Verzeichniss" is not mentioned in the "Tentamen," but includes such genera as Eurybia, Echenais, Mesosemia, Charis, Euselasia, etc.

=

Stirps III represents what we now know as the Erycinidæ, or, as some would have it, the Riodinidæ. Stirps IV of the "Verzeichniss," Stirps III of the "Tentamen," contains the so-called Lemoniades. The genus Lemonias is not given under the Lemoniades! We, however, find the genus Melitaa. The butterfly which in the "Tentamen" appears as Lemonias maturna in the "Verzeichniss" is Melitaa maturna Linnæus, and under this name has been familiar to every German schoolboy from the days of Hübner to the present time.

Stirps V in the "Verzeichniss" is equivalent to Stirps IV of the "Tentamen" and bears the same name, Dryades. Under this heading we find the genera Phyciodes, Brenthis, Argynnis, Colænis, etc. Under the genus (coitus) Argyronome we find A. paphia Linn. as a species. Nowhere does the genus (coitus) Dryas appear!

Stirps VI of the "Verzeichniss" is equivalent to Stirps V of the "Tentamen," bearing the same name, Hamadryades. No genus Hamadryas appears anywhere in the "Verzeichniss," but among the genera enumerated under the Hamadryades are Vanessa, Pyrameis, Precis, Junonia, etc. The species indicated in the "Tentamen" as Hamadryas Io is found as No. 22 under the genus Inachis.

And so the student may go on throughout the entire list, discovering the fact that the apparently generic names prefixed to the species, which are cited in the "Tentamen," do not occur at all in the "Verzeichniss," of which, as Hübner tells us, the "Tentamen" was the foundation.

Now what is the explanation of this fact? In order to understand it we must endeavor to put ourselves in Hübner's place and follow the workings of his mind at the time he was engaged in his studies. At the moment he sketched the "Tentamen" for submission to his learned friends and correspondents the matter immediately before him was not the setting up of genera, but the creation of what he calls Stirpes. He was seeking for a natural subdivision of the lepidoptera into Stirpes, or what we now call families. He was giving no thought whatever to the minor subdivision into genera or Coitus (Vereine) as he called them. In the "Tentamen" he proposes a series of Stirpes or family-names. In order to visualize to his correspondents what he had in mind he took the specific names of a number of well-known species and prefixed to these specific names the name of the Stirps (not of the genus) into which he proposed to put the insect. Any man who simply confines his attention to the "Tentamen" and fails at the same time to take into consideration the "Verzeichniss" is certain to go astray, as has unfortunately been the case with some recent writers. It is as unfortunate

for a student of this matter to confine himself and his thought to Hübner's "Tentamen" as it would be for a man endeavoring to write a life of Christ to confine himself to the Gospel according to St. Matthew and to omit all reference to the other three gospels. The gospels supplement each other. The "Verzeichniss" explains the "Tentamen" and shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is in error who accepts the names in the "Tentamen," which look like generic names, as being such in reality. The "Verzeichniss" shows clearly that Hübner did not intend them to be so used. He simply cites certain species as representative of what he intended to include in his proposed Stirpes.

Passing from this critical examination of the subject, it should be said that the International Commission on Nomenclature has done right in deciding that the "Tentamen" was, as all students who have investigated the matter understand it to have been, merely a circular letter. Although it was printed on paper (typewriters, hectographs and other manifolding devices were unknown in Hübner's day) it was not published as "a zoological record."

In this connection I can not refrain from quoting a sentence contained in a letter received from my honored friend, Dr. F. A. Bather, of the British Museum, who anent the question of the "Tentamen" says: "I think it is perfectly awful to decide that a man can not ask the opinion of his friends as to the value of certain names without being thereby committed to them eternally." All that Hübner did in the "Tentamen" was to circularize his acquaintances, and he would turn in his grave if he imagined that his private correspondence, forgotten until S. H. Scudder published a facsimile of the letter in 1873, was being employed to upset the system he published in the "Verzeichniss," as well as to upset a system of nomenclature based in large part on his patient labors, but improved by those who have come after him, and which has been practically in use for a century.

Certain workers in the field of terminology, obsessed with the idea that by slavish obedience to the "law of priority" they can establish a final and satisfactory nomenclature, should be reminded that consistent usage, covering a century, or more, in the use of names, is also not to be disregarded. "A rose under any other name would smell as sweet." But roses are roses; they are not cabbages; and, when some man reminds me that certain roses long ago and even recently have been called "cabbage-roses" and tells me that I must therefore call all roses cabbages, because in combination cabbage "has priority" over rose, I naturally am ruffled.

As a student of the lepidoptera for sixty years

and with the entire literature of the subject at my fingers' tips, I object emphatically to having the terminology of my favorite science upset by efforts which, however well meant, show that those who are making them possess "more zeal than knowledge."

Opinion 97 will be accepted by all thorough students of the terminology of the lepidoptera with gratification. The thanks of the lepidopterists of the world are due to the Commission for the Opinion which they have handed down. It will tend mightily to clear up a situation which has been most annoying to students of the lepidoptera, as well as the great public, including compilers of dictionaries and encyclopedias. Only recently I received a letter from a young correspondent who said to me: "What is the matter? Why are they always changing the names of the butterflies? I have arranged my collection using the generic names given in your Butterfly Book. Must I now call my Argynnids Dryases; my Vanessas Hamadryases?" I answered him by saying, "No! The generic names Argynnis and Vanessa have been used prevalently by reputable scientists for a hundred and twenty-five years. You have the authority of all the leading writers in the world for their use."

It is high time that trifling in matters of zoological nomenclature should come to an end. As the croupier at Monte Carlo says, when a too ardent player strives to lay down his belated stakes on the table: "Le jeu est fait. Rien ne va plus!"

Born at Kingston, Wisconsin, in 1864, he attended the country schools of those days and studied botany, ornithology, dendrology and kindred sciences. He was graduated eventually, however, from the University of Michigan, as a physician and surgeon. After a year of teaching botany at the Michigan Agricultural College, he surrendered to his natural desire for the open, and was appointed botanist and dendrologist to the old division of forestry in the U. S. Department of Agriculture on August 31, 1888, and from that date forestry became his life work. Mr. Sudworth was the oldest member of the Forest Service in point of years of service. Just a few weeks

prior to his death his revision of his well-known "Check List of Forest Trees of the United States, their Names and Ranges," first published in 1898, was issued; a work of which he was extremely proud and which was unquestionably the crowning event of his busy life, a monument to his energy, ability and knowledge of forestry.

It is interesting to note that in the twenty-seven years between the date of the original publication of this valuable work in 1898 and this latest revision, more than 570 additional trees have been listed, the total number of different sorts of trees printed in the revision being 1,177.

In this new check list Mr. Sudworth has performed a valuable service in bringing order out of the bewildering mass of local tree names. This was a work in which he was greatly interested not only because of its value to the student and the professional forester but also as a protection to the public against deception in the purchase of lumber.

In addition to the "Check List," Mr. Sudworth published "Forest Trees of the Pacific Slope," "Cypress and Juniper Trees of the Rocky Mountain Region," "Spruce and Balsam Fir Trees of the Rocky Mountain Region," and "Pine Trees of the Rocky Mountain Region." Besides the works mentioned he wrote and published many other bulletins and papers on dendrology and other lines of practical as well as scientific forestry.

Mr. Sudworth was greatly interested in boy scout organizations. The section in the Boy Scout Manual devoted to tree identification was one of his contributions to that movement.

His knowledge of trees was based on broad field experiences and explorations. He knew the woods as a practical woodsman as well as scientist. He explored almost every nook and corner of the United States in search of new trees and information regarding doubtful species. During his years in the Forest Service he became thoroughly acquainted with all of the National Forests, and his explorations and discoveries have been invaluable aids in the administration and protection of the National Forests. While he always claimed a special fondness for the oak family, he undoubtedly discovered and named more new trees of every kind than any other modern American forester. Those who have been with Mr. Sudworth in the woods were always greatly impressed with his powers of close observation and keenness in discovering apparently new varieties of forest trees or deviations from established types. His wonderful memory and his ability to locate without referring to books or notes the exact place and time where he had seen trees of approximately the same kind were always matters of profound surprise.

During his explorations in the field, especially in the western United States, he was the victim of numerous unfortunate accidents which brought from him the remark one day to the effect that it seemed to him that he was destined never to die in his bed. One of his most thrilling experiences was in 1910 while exploring the high mountain regions of the Cochetopa National Forest in Colorado. He and a forest ranger were caught at timberline in an unexpected snowstorm about twenty miles from the ranger station. His horse stumbled in the deep snow and fell from the trail, Mr. Sudworth being caught beneath the animal. Cleared of the horse, he found he had broken two ribs and his collar bone. The horse was uninjured, and Mr. Sudworth, assisted by the ranger, mounted and rode about ten miles to an abandoned Mexican hut, arriving there just about nightfall suffering untold agonies from his injuries. Owing to the storm, it was absolutely impossible for them to travel further and they remained in the cabin that night, their only food being potatoes, of which they found a sack in the cellar of the cabin. During their enforced stay, Mr. Sudworth with his early knowledge of surgery did what he could to make himself comfortable, cutting up a saddle blanket into strips with which he bound his body to support the broken ribs and protect his collar bone from further injury. At noon the next day the storm broke and they managed to reach a small hamlet where a young medical student was living, who, assisted by Mr. Sudworth, did everything that could be done with their limited resources to relieve his suffering. In this condition he rode in a wagon for about twenty-five miles to the nearest railroad and took the train for Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he placed himself under the care of an experienced surgeon who found the temporary remedies used very satisfactory. He had at least two other such accidents, equally serious but from which he emerged without permanent injury.

Mr. Sudworth was one of the most lovable, kindly, companionable men imaginable. Every man in the Forest Service was his friend, and many a forest ranger and his wife hidden away in some government station in the western mountains will mourn sincerely the news of his untimely death. To spend a month with him in the forests, as did the writer, was at once an education and a privilege; a never-tobe-forgotten experience.

He was a member of the Washington Academy of Sciences, the Biological Society of Washington, the Botanical Society of Washington, the Society of American Foresters, the American Forestry Association, and an honorary member of the Finska Forstsamfundet, a Danish forestry association.

MEMORIAL OF THE RESEARCH CLUB OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

IN the deaths of Wm. J. Hussey, Alfred H. Lloyd and Francis W. Kelsey the Research Club mourns the loss of three most distinguished members, who were not only able research workers but were even better known for their promotion of research and of the facilities for research.

Professor William Joseph Hussey achieved international distinction through his contributions to Astronomy, especially in the field of binary stars, and brought his department in the University of Michigan to the point where it was regarded as one of the foremost in his subject in the United States. Products of his efforts in the direction of provision for research are found in the additions to the Observatory of the University of Michigan, the now active La Plata Observatory and the Lamont Southern Observatory in process of erection in South Africa. Products of his research are found in the volumes of the Lick, the La Plata, and the Detroit Observatories, and in considerably more than one hundred papers in various astronomical journals.

Dean Alfred Henry Lloyd, a philosopher who pondered the problems of ultimate being and made great progress in ordering man's conception of them, had an influence on research which can not be measured by the five books and numerous articles published by him. As graduate dean he gave every encouragement to the promotion and publication of investigations in every field and made many innovations in organization and in obtaining funds that were of great assistance in themselves and set precedents that promise much for the future.

Professor Francis Willey Kelsey was elected to the Research Club within recent years, though he had long been known as an able scholar and a tireless worker both in organizing research and in gathering material for it. His most conspicuous achievement

during his earlier period was the establishment of the University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series, of which the 21st volume will appear this year. His own published books were either textbooks or translations, two of which, however, the Mau-Kelsey Pompeii, and Hugo Crotius Law of War and Peace, contained much original work. Most of his research work, however, is found in shorter papers, which appeared in the various classical journals. In 1920 he organized the Near East Expedition of the University, which has already made Michigan the leading American university in its collections of papyri, manuscripts and archeological material. The value of the research which his efforts have occasioned and will continue to make possible can not be over-estimated.

THE NATIONAL ARBORETUM

FOLLOWING one of the provisions of the act of the last congress establishing a National Arboretum at Washington, Secretary of Agriculture Jardine has announced the membership of the advisory council, which is to plan and develop the arboretum. The members are Frederic A. Delano, Washington, D. C., member of the board of regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Chairman; Dr. L. H. Bailey, Ithaca, New York; Henry S. Graves, dean of the School of Forestry, Yale University; Harlan P. Kelsey, Salem, Mass.; John C. Merriam, president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington; Mrs. Frank B. Noyes, Washington, D. C., chairman of the District of Columbia committee of the Garden Club of America; Frederick Law Olmsted, Brookline, Mass., former president of the American Society of Landscape Architects; Mrs. Harold I. Pratt, Glen Cove, L. I., secretary of the Garden Club of America; Robert Pyle, West Grove, Pa., director of the Society of American Florists and Ornamental Horticulturists.

The act authorizing the secretary of agriculture to establish the National Arboretum is as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to establish and maintain a national arboretum for purpose of research and education concerning tree and plant life. For the purpose of this Act, (1) the President is authorized to transfer to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture by Executive order any land which now belongs to the United States within or adjacent to the District of Columbia located along the Anacostia River north of Benning Bridge, and (2) the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized in his discretion to acquire, within the limits of the appropriation authorized by this Act by private purchase, condemnation proceedings, or gift, land so located or other land within or adjacent to the District of Columbia: Provided, That the purchase price of any part of said land shall not ex