report and map published by the U. S. bureau of topographical engineers, as 'Senate document No. 237, 26th congress, 2nd session, 1843.' A reduced fac-simile of a portion of this map is here reproduced. AUGUST 13, 1886.] SCIENCE. tion, which was published by Harpers in 1834, and is accompanied by a map of the region, compiled by Lieutenant Allen. A reduced fac-simile of a portion of this map is here reproduced. From Lac Gake Plantagenet South Fork of the Mississippi < Planta Narwa R. SITASCA LAKE - the source of the Mississippe ower length from the Gulf of Mexico. 3.160 miles FIG. 1.-SCHOOLCRAFT'S MAP.-1832. Travers (Bunidji Lake) the expedition ascended the Plantagenian Fork, 'carried' over a six-mile portage to Lake Owashkos (Elk), which Schoolcraft named Itasca, and descended the Itascan Fork, having spent three days in making the circuit. That Schoolcraft knew of an inlet to Lake Itasca is evident from his map, on which an inlet leading from a smaller lake to the south is indicated, but in addition to this he says on p. 58 of his 'Narrative:' "The outlet of Itasca Lake is perhaps ten to twelve feet broad, with an apparent depth of twelve to eighteen inches. The discharge of water appears to be copious, compared to its inlet." It may be asserted that Schoolcraft knew of an inlet only from visiting its mouth, but that he neglected to ascend and explore it, and that his knowledge of the existence of the small lake from which it leads was gathered from his Indian guide-or was entirely hypothetical. Although this is unlikely, owing to the object of the expedition and to the fact that the map does not show other and larger lakes which were not visited, still, as no mention of this small lake is made in the narrative, let this view of the case be conceded, and let us pass to the next explorer. Four years later, in 1836, Mr. J. N. Nicollet visited and made an instrumental exploration of this region. The results of his explorations he incorporated in a Shell F La Balibage Baily FIG. 2.- NICOLLET'S MAP. - 1843. From his report we learn that Nicollet approached "Now, of the five creeks that empty into Itasca The day on which I explored this principal creek (August 29th, 1836) I judged that, at its entrance into Itasca Lake, its bed was from 15 to 20 feet wide, and the depth of water from 2 to 3 feet. As a further description of these head-waters, I may add that they unite at a small distance from the hills wherein they originate, and form a small lake from which the Mississippi flows with a breadth of a foot and a half and a depth of one foot. At no great supplies a distance, however, this rivulet From this lake issues a second minor lake. into the basin of a third lake somerivulet what larger than the two preceding. Having here acquired renewed vigor, and tried its consequence SCIENCE. 144 After upon an additional length of two or three miles, it finally empties into Lake Itasca. having devoted three days to an exploration of the sources of the Mississippi, and spent portions of the nights in making astronomical observations, I took leave of Itasca Lake, to the examination of which the expedition that preceded me by four years had devoted but a short time. "The honor of having first explored the sources of the Mississippi and of introducing a knowledge of them into physical geography, belongs to Mr. Schoolcraft and Lieutenant Allen. I come only after these gentlemen; but I may be permitted to claim some merit for having completed what was wanting for a full geographical account of these sources. over, I am, I believe, the first traveller who has carried with him astronomical instruments, and put them to profitable account along the whole course of the Mississippi from its mouth to its sources." More In the table on pp. 124 and 125 are to be found Nicollet's determination of the geodetic position and elevation of this region - among others Lake Itasca (Schoolcraft's Island) 47° 13' 35" north latitude, 95° 2' west longitude, and 1,575 feet above the Gulf of Mexico - and the "utmost sources of the Mississippi, at the summit of the height of land, six miles south of Lake Itasca - elevation 1,680 feet above the Gulf." Nicollet, therefore, fully explored, recorded, and mapped all the inlets to Lake Itasca, found that these inlets, or some of them, came from lakes or lakelets; and, recognizing that the source of a river is the one most distant from its mouth, considered none of the tributary lakelets he had explored as sufficiently important to even merit a name. to this he distinctly states that "the honor of first exploring the sources of the Mississippi belongs to Messrs. Schoolcraft and Allen." In addition I am unable to give the exact date at which the township including the immediate vicinage of Lake Itasca was surveyed and subdivided into one-mile sections; but it is marked, by the little cross, as having been so subdivided, on the land office map of Minnesota, issued in 1879 - or two years before Mr. Glazier's trip. A tracing from this map is reproduced here, and on it is shown not only a small lake south of and tributary to Lake Itasca, but a name, 'Elk Lake,' is affixed to this lake. Probably the surveyors in sectionizing this region, remembering the old Indian name, 'Owoshkos, of the lake which Schoolcraft called Itasca, thought to preserve it by affixing its English equivalent to the small tributary lake to the south. A further inspection of the landoffice map proves the integrity of its makers. East of Lake Itasca is an area not crossed by township lines; it had not been surveyed by the land-office at the time this map was made, and consequently all topographical features, streams, and lakes, were omitted. Thus only part of the east, or Plantagenian, branch of the Mississippi is shown, though the existence and course of the river was well known; and on other government maps, as, for instance, the post route maps for 1876 - the whole course of this branch is indicated. And now, having seen that the small lake south of and tributary to Lake Itasca was mapped by Schoolcraft in 1832; fully explored and mapped by Nicollet in 1836; and surveyed, mapped, and named by the land office prior to 1879 - what remains to justify Mr. Glazier's claim to discovery in But it may be urged, that opinions may differ as to the relative importance of the Itascan lakes; that the smaller tributary lake, though discovered and explored in 1836, was not then named; and as it is nearer than Lake Itasca to the ultimate head spring of the Mississippi, it was fair game for the traveller who should reach it and affix a name to it. This, 1881? His own detailed account of his trip entitled the 'Recent discovery of the true source of the Mississippi, By Captain Willard Glazier,' was published in vol. 1 of the American meteorological journal (Detroit, 1884), and was illustrated by a map of the region 'drawn from delineations by his Indian guide.' A Aj & NI'S VI L. Beaulieu? River Hattie Nawa R. Lagard R. Copa Chase L. Toda L:Hampton L. Richardson R. PondC L. Alice Goosel LEECH L Agency + though again an extreme view, may be again con ceded. 1. Brira Excelsior Ch Bagle Cicer LAKE GLAZIER. Source of the Mississippi River. 3184 mites from the Gulf of Mexican Reached July 29. 1651 FIG. 4.-GLAZIER'S MAP. - 1881. Garneu MISSIS portion of this map is here reproduced for comparison with the others. AUGUST 31, 1886.] SCIENCE. of former fires, the bones of prevented Lake Glazier (!) Glazier states (p. 327) that Lake Glazier is in latitude 47° 13' 25 north; is 1,578 feet above sea level; and distant from the sea 3,184 miles. Schoolcraft states in his first edition (1834, p. 58) that Lake Itasca is 3,160 miles from the sea, and in his revised edition (1855, pp. 243 and 245) he inserts Nicollet's determinations of its latitude, 47° 13' 35" North, and its elevation, 1,575 feet. With the exception of the figures, Glazier's language is word for word that of Schoolcraft. On p. 328 of Glazier's account is found an addendum entitled 'Meteorological observations at the head-waters of the Mississippi,' consisting of a record of daily temperature from July 17 to Aug. 2 (July 17 is the date at which Glazier says, p. 252, he started from Leech Lake). Now reference to p. 423 of Schoolcraft's 'Narrative' (edition of 1855) reveals the fact that this meteorological table is an exact copy, word for word and figure for figure, of observations taken between the days named, in the year 1820, by Schoolcraft in the vicinity of Cass Lake! This liberal use of the statistical information gathered by others; i.e., a subtraction of ten seconds from Nicollet's observation of the latitude, and an addition of three feet to his barometrical determination of the elevation of Lake Itasca; and the exact copy of Schoolcraft's meteorological observations at Cass Lake, - afford strong evidence, in the absence of any direct statement to the contrary, that Mr. Glazier took no scientific instruments with him, such as thermometer, barometer, and sextant or solar-compass, and that he simply made a guess at the latitude and one Now Nicollet's determination of the latitude of Itasca is of the island in the lake (Schoolcraft's is 47° 13 35"; while Glazier says (p. (p. 327) Island), and Copper River, Alaska, glacial action. For the study of the action of water in its relation to geological changes, American students have always found an ample field at home; not so, however, with respect to glacial action, for we find our most exhaustive treatise on this subject (Shaler's) confined almost exclusively to the Alps glaciers. Let specialists in the future seek fields in our own province, where the system is probably more extensive than in any other country south of the arctic circle. I refer to that portion of the territory from Chilcat inlet up to Cook's inlet, and in especial to that portion drained by the Copper River. How far glacial action has been concerned in tho determination of the topography will long be a subject for study. My observations were such as to cause a belief in an ice sheet that one time extended from the Alaskan Mountains to the coast; as to how much farther from the north it came I have nothing to say. It may at first be considered at variance with the theory of contemporary upheaval of this part of the territory with the ranges of the western part of the United States. If the glacial period be considered long subsequent to the upheaval, there need be no difficulty in reconciling the above. It was the ice sea, which, by its steady motion to the south, has largely assisted in giving the country its present configuration. From Yakutat Bay to the mouth of Copper River is an unbroken face of ice extending a distance of fifty miles. How far this reaches to the interior through the gorges of the coast is unknown, though it may be safe to consider the distance equal to that of the glaciers of Copper River from its mouth. These latter may be considered an extension of the including the above-menice fronting the coast, tioned fifty miles, - which has been cut through by the river. There is every reason to believe that Miles's and Child's glaciers were formerly one and the same, - an opinion that is in some way strengthened by the traditions of the natives. The most southerly point of the former on the left is one mile or less from the most northerly point of the latter on the right bank; while in the river bed between are well-worn bowlders eight to twelve feet in diameter. Furthermore, on the left bank below Miles's glacier, and opposite Child's, is an enormous glacial drift now covered with vegetation. Where this is joined to Miles's it is impossible to distinguish the drift from the glacier. The flow of these is now from east to west for those on the left bank, and from west to east for those on the right bank; yet this is not the general course the masses had when much larger than at present. They are at present but a residuum of the once extensive ice fields now discharging along the paths of least resistance. Had not the climate here been moist and in other respects favorable for glacier making, the present site would have been occupied by only drift or moraine. Farther north, above the Chittyná on the east bank of the Copper, are for many miles terraces large and small. The smaller ones are so regularly formed as to leave the impression that they were the fronts of old fortifications. In Blake's 'Stickeen River,' he makes mention of the scarcity of well-defined terraces, while Dall also failed to observe any in the vicinity of Sitka and the Alaska Peninsula. I can only account for the remarkable width of the bed of the Copper by the supposition that it was excavated by the power of gigantic ice masses assisted ly the eroding effects of the torrent waters from them. The volume of water in proportion to the width of bed is less than in any river within my knowledge, vet the banks, as a rule, are high and rather steep. The sources of the Copper and its principal tributary, the Chittyná, are glaciers, though small in comparison with those above mentioned. By an examination of the map it will be seen that the Alaskan Mountains form an arc convex to the northward; hence the lines of least resistance of ice masses in moving from these mountains to the southward, tended to intersect in the present Copper val ley. The result was the enormous power producing the remarkable excavations cited above. I earnestly hope that glacial action in this district will receive early attention at the hands of competent men. A simple inspection of the maps of Alaska, however deficient in detail they are, by a student of nature will show that this locality was the scene of most powerful action, the traces of which are correspondingly clearly preserved. North of the Alaskan Mountains I failed to observe any of these remarkable glacial phenomena, though from reports of miners they may be found in the White River region. HENRY T. ALLEN. Fort Walla Walla, Washington Ter., Aug. 1. The significance of coincident weather-conditions. In your criticism (Aug. 6) upon my article entitled, 'The significance of coincident weather-conditions,' you intimate that I have not given proper heed to dissimilar weather.' It did not seem to me necessary to dwell at length upon that phase of the subject in order to make my meaning plain. But inasmuch as there seems to be an entire misunderstanding, I will now say that any theory that demands, for instance, that a typhoon shall occur in New York state is manifestly absurd. The influence of oceans, and continents, and of mountain ranges, and the like, must be taken into the account. In certain latitudes storms have a well-defined character at certain seasons of the year. Thus, dissimilarity of weather conditions in different localities is readily accounted for. There are times, however, when great storms occur almost simultaneously in every quarter of the globe. My point is that such an event affords an opportunity to test the theory that there is a direct relation of some sort between disturbances on the sun and storms on the earth. If this relation does exist, the sun should be disturbed in proportion to the magnitude of these exceptional atmospheric movements on the earth. That this was the case during the storms in May, the records of the condition of the sun then made will show (see Nature for July 22, p. 278). Also consult any records accessible in regard to the terrestrial and solar conditions existing on March 31, 1886. It would manifestly be unsafe to generalize on the basis of one or two such cases. But when numerous instances of this sort have been recorded, it would seem quite proper to call attention to the matter, as constituting one item of information in regard to a great and complex subject about which confessedly but little is known. In the words of my article, "the truth of the theory that the condition of the sun modifies the weather on the earth can be tested by considering the case of great storms that prevail widely." Lyons, N. Y., Aug. 7. M. A. VEEDER. Poisoning by ice-cream. No chemist certainly would suppose that the same poison exists in all samples of ice-cream which have produced untoward symptoms in man. Mineral poisons, copper, lead, arsenic, and mercury, have all been found in ice cream. In some instances these have been used with criminal intent. In other cases their presence has been accidental. Likewise, that vanilla is sometimes the bearer, at least, of the poison, is well known to all chemists. Dr. Bartley's idea that the poisonous properties of the cream which he examined were due to putrid gelatine is certainly a rational theory. The poisonous principle might in this case arise from the decomposition of the gelatine; or with the gelatine there may be introduced into the milk a ferment, by the growth of which a poison is produced. But in the cream which I examined, none of the above sources of the poisoning existed. There were no mineral poisons present. No gelatine of any kind had been used in making the cream. The vanilla used was shown to be not poisonous. This showing was made, not by a chemical analysis, which might not have been conclusive, but Mr. Novie and I drank of the vanilla extract which was used, and no ill results followed. Still, from this cream we isolated the same poison which I had before found in poisonous cheese (Zeitschrift für physiologische chemie, x, heft 2), and demonstrated its poisonous properties by experiments upon cats. Moreover, by adding a piece of the solid portion of the poisonous cream, about the size of a filbert, to some normal milk, and making cream with this milk, following the details of the maker of the Lawton cream, omitting, however, all flavoring, I obtained a highly poisonous cream. Does this not prove that the poison may be produced by fermentation in good milk? A detailed account of my experiments may be found in my report to the Michigan state board of health. Ann Arbor, August 9. V. C. VAUGHAN. FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 1886. MEDICINE IN THE UNITED STATES, AND ITS RELATIONS TO CO-OPERATIVE INVESTIGATION. I PROPOSE to call your attention briefly to some points relating to the present condition and future prospects of medicine in the United States, and to the direction in which you may reasonably hope and expect from that country in the future the most useful co-operation in the improvement of medical science and art. I believe that these must be matters of interest to you, and that I can perhaps make clear certain peculiarities which do not seem to be as generally understood on this side of the Atlantic as it is desirable that they should be to insure sound judgment upon some of the results observed. In the first place, permit me to call your attention to the fact that it is hardly possible to make any statements with regard to medicine in, or the medical profession of, the United States as a whole, which shall be definite and at the same time distinctive; that is, which will not apply almost equally well to medicine and the medical profession in other countries. This is due to the fact that there are great differences in the organization of the profession in different parts of America, so that what is true of one state would not be true of another; what is required as to fitness or qualification to practise in one place is not required in another; and the country covers so many parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude, making the conditions of life so diverse, and producing such differences in the prevailing diseases, that a man who is fairly qualified to practise in one section may be poorly fitted to treat the endemic diseases of another. Let us begin by considering some of the things that American physicians complain about; in other words, some of their supposed grievances. One of these is that the profession is overcrowded ; that there are too many doctors, both in esse and in posse, and that this is due to too low a standard of education, and to the want of legal restrictions as to the qualifications which shall give a man the right to practise. Statistics gathered in 1 Condensed from the annual address in medicine delivered before the British medical association, Wednesday, August 11, 1886, by JOHN S. BILLINGS, surgeon U. S. A. 2 1883, showed that in the United States and Canada there were 90,410 persons calling themselves physicians, being in the proportion of 1 to every 600 of population. In Canada alone, there were 3487 physicians, or 1 to 1112 of population. If we take the figures of our last census, of 1880, the proportion of physicians reported, is 1 to 589 of population, or 17 per 10,000. In England and Wales, by the census of 1881, the proportion of physicians is only 5.8 per 10,000, but these figures are not properly comparable with those of the United States, because they do not include unregistered persons. If the same classes were included that are counted in the United States report, I presume that the proportion would be about 9 per 10,000, or a little more than half that in the United States. In the United State the proportion to the population of those who call themselves physicians varies greatly in different localities; thus, in Colorado there are 29.3, in Indiana 25.2, in Oregon 24.3, and in Arkansas 23.5 per 10,000; while in New Mexico there are only 6.6, in South Carolina 9.2 and in North Carolina 9.7 per 10,000. It is not easy to give satisfactory reasons for these differences; we can only say that they do not depend to any great extent upon local legislation. The proportion of physicians is generally lowest in the southern states lying east of the Mississippi, and highest in those regions where immigration has recently been active. If we compare, by localities, the proportion of physicians to the population with that of clergymen and lawyers, we find some curious differences. It seems that the lawyers in the United States number 12.7, while in England and Wales they are 6.6 per 10,000, but that on the other hand the clergymen are 14.6 in England and 12.8 in the United States per 10,000 of population. In many instances it seems that where the lawyers are most numerous the supply of clergymen is smallest. I believe that a fair proportion of physicians to population is about 1 per 1000, which is not far from the actual proportion in England, while the true proportion of practising physicians in the United States is about 1 in 750. We must admit, then, that there is at all events no scarcity of physicians in the United States, and, as we have over 80 medical schools at work, besides a fair proportion of medical immigrants, there is no immediate danger of any interruption to the supply. Illinois state board of health report, 1884. |