L

Conservation from a biological standpoint (C. E. Sanborn, Oklahoma).

Research in secondary schools (A. F. Reiter, Oklahoma).

The possibility of the redemption of the great plains from their semi-arid condition (J. B. Thoburn, Oklahoma).

Church and science (I. F. Lewis, Virginia).

Some reactions of man to platinum (J. L. Howe, Virginia).

What is science? (L. B. Richardson, New Hampshire).
A skeptical inquiry into the creed of science (W. B.
Van Arsdel, New Hampshire).

The open mind (W. C. O'Kane, New Hampshire).
Backgrounds (F. H. Foster, New Hampshire).

The academy secretaries were asked in what way their academies cooperate with state departments and state organizations, with a view to making known the resources and advantages of their respective states. Ten academies make a definite effort to cooperate in this way, five cooperate only a very little, while four answer the question in the negative. The following are mentioned as avenues for cooperation: close contact with the State Educational Association, making the meetings as educational as possible, publication of papers on surveys, working with the State Conservation Commission, fostering research, having representatives of the state departments read papers and take part in the discussions, maintaining a conservation committee, acting in an advisory capacity to state departments on scientific matters, placing papers at the service of the public, supplying scientific information to the state legislature, keeping tab on legislation affecting scientific interests, having papers on the resources of the state, and offering the services of the academy to the governor in the capacity of an advisory scientific body to the state. Cooperation seems to be a reversible reaction. In Iowa a plan is on foot for the state to appropriate $2,000 or $3,000 for a biological and natural history survey of the state, the academy to furnish the experts. In Illinois the state surveys contribute papers to the Academy Transactions and the Transactions are published by the state.

Closely associated with the topic just considered are the replies to the question, "in what other way does your academy contribute to the scientific progress of your state?" Two secretaries say their academies contribute nothing, one is doubtful, another recognizes ungrasped opportunities by saying, "I am afraid we have done very little," while fifteen mention specific ways in which they justify their existence. The secretary of the North Carolina Academy, Dr. H. R. Totten, mentions the largest number of ways: That academy publishes important papers read at meetings and abstracts of the others, works for

better scientific teaching in high schools, supplies speakers for educational meetings and for high schools, offers a state prize for the best essay by a high-school pupil on a scientific subject, keeps in close touch with the State Department of Education, arouses interest in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and works for freedom of thought, of research and of teaching.

Several other secretaries send lists nearly as long. The following may be mentioned in addition: arousing public interest in scientific matters, backing legislative bills of a scientific nature, publishing papers primarily for non-scientific readers, conducting symposia for teachers in high schools, making the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual allowance available for grants for scientific work, encouraging graduate students to do research work, endorsing public movements like those for national parks, conducting a bureau of information at the service of the people, presenting non-technical lectures, publishing results of research connected with state affairs, encouraging beginners in science, fostering higher standards of scientific work in the state, and offering prizes or financial aid to meritorious projects. Though some of these items are plainly. adapted to restricted and local use, still they supply suggestions for future activity to any academy that is looking for some new way to serve its state.

The question, "Do you have interchange of speakers, of ideas, or of reports on scientific work with other academies and if so to what extent," brought out the fact that ten academies practice no such interchange, while five have only occasional interchange. The secretary of one of the latter said, "Only occasionally and then rather accidentally." Four secretaries mention having out-of-state speakers, not always, however, drawn from the academy of a neighboring state. Three academies have had a joint meeting with a neighboring academy. One (Illinois) has an "out-of-state speaker for the complimentary address to the public." Another (Maryland) invites all visiting scientists to attend its lectures. One (Tennessee) "very rarely" has interchange, but the secretary adds, "I hope to see organized during the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December, 1927, a Federation or Union of State Academies which will promote these things." Three academies (Illinois, Ohio and Oklahoma) exchange their publications with the other state academies, Oklahoma exchanging "widely, both in America and abroad." It thus appears that closer relationship among the state academies would be very helpful in general and it is clear that this feature of academy work is apt to receive more attention in the future.

Only four academies have museums. The Maryland Academy has done most along these lines. Having started with the Peale Museum, in 1797, it now maintains a constantly developing museum of science and natural history, housed in its own building and freely open to the public from 9 A. M. to 4 P. M., after which hours it is open only to members. The Kansas Academy has merged its museum with that of the State University. The Indiana Academy is cooperating with the State Museum and with the local historical societies in extensive mound exploration and is depositing all its material in the State Museum. The North Carolina Academy maintains no separate museum, but members of the State Museum are active in the academy and there is close cooperation.

Nine academies have no libraries. Two have no separate libraries; Iowa deposits its books in the state library, while Michigan has merged its library with the State University Library. Eight academies have libraries: Tennessee "only a few volumes, just beginning"; Illinois about the same; Ohio about 300 volumes; Kansas 4,000; Indiana 6,000, and Wisconsin several thousand volumes and 700 exchanges. The Indiana Academy library is in the same building with the State Library; the Wisconsin Academy library is incorporated with that of the State University. The Oklahoma Academy library is handled as part of the State University Library, but books are cataloged and shelved separately and book-plated "Academy." Provision is made for the removal of all academy books at any time. Most of these academy libraries aim to be extensive collections of scientific literature in general, rather than smaller collections of such reports of scientific investigation as the members might not find in their university libraries. The Maryland Academy library, however, contains many rare scientific volumes.

The Maryland Academy is the only one on our list that owns its own building. The fact that nine academies are incorporated shows that they are looking forward to future material resources and broader activities.

All academies but two (Georgia and New Orleans) issue some kind of a publication. Proceedings, Transactions, Journal and Annual Reports are titles most frequently used. Abstracts as a title is used once, as also is News-Letter. These printed reports vary in size from a 20-page pamphlet to a 450-page volume; they average perhaps 150 pages per year. In eight cases the publication is financed from the dues or general fund of the academy. In five cases the state finances the undertaking; in two out of these five cases (Indiana and Wisconsin) the state appropriates $1,500 annually. In two states (Michi

gan and Oklahoma) the state university pays for part or all of the academy report. The academies of Nebraska and Oklahoma are planning endowments to take care of all the publication expenses. For the North Carolina Academy the Proceedings are published by the Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, of the University of North Carolina, the university and the academy dividing the expense between them. The extent to which state academies have gone into the publication of reports is shown by the fact that the Indiana, Iowa and Kansas academies have each published over thirty volumes. Several of the publications are well illustrated. Alabama publishes simply abstracts of its papers in pamphlet form. New Hampshire has not yet entered the printed-page field, but it has furnished to its members mimeographed News-letters, somewhat irregularly, but on the average of about one a month. These contain the programs and announcements of the meetings, abstracts of papers read, and-what does not appear in any of the literature received from the other academies-news items about the members. In this last respect we appear to be a step ahead of the procession.

In another way the New Hampshire Academy appears to stand alone; no other academy has published any handbooks of its state, such as the Handbook of the Geology of New Hampshire, prepared by Professor J. W. Goldthwait for the academy and financed from the academy funds.

If we take as a starting point the foregoing outline of what the twenty-one affiliated academies have accomplished in the various states and how those accomplishments have been brought about, we may now look into the future through the lenses of what appear to be present opportunities, to secure some suggestions for the further development of the academy idea. It seems perfectly clear that state academies of science have been and are very valuable indeed, not only to their members but also to the progress of science and education in general in their respective states and consequently to the public at large. Such a conclusion is strongly supported in a very notable way by the enthusiastic and cordial response with which the academy secretaries to whom our questionnaire was sent have responded to our questions. As has been said, many of these secretaries, all of whom are very busy men, answered our queries with much more than perfunctory care; their replies indicate a very high degree of painstaking interest and enthusiasm for the work of their academies and for the cooperation of these organizations through their official affiliation with the American Association. To these secretaries is primarily due

Besides reflecting their own faith in the work of their academies and the similar and obvious faith of their fellow members, these replies from the secretaries of the affiliated academies also strongly reflect what appears to be a very wide-spread and general feeling that the work of the academies should be strengthened and broadened more and more through alertness to take advantage of all opportunities that may arise in each case. As a concluding part of this paper I may mention some of the kinds of opportunities that seem to lie before these organizations, as such opportunities have been suggested by this study of the affiliated academies. These suggestions may be classified in two groups, opportunities for strengthening and enlarging the work of each academy in its own state and opportunities for broader and more active cooperation among the several academies, for mutual help and for the advancement of science and education throughout the country as a whole. It will be convenient and perhaps most serviceable to present these two categories of suggestions from the standpoint of our own New Hampshire Academy, with which I am naturally best acquainted.

From the standpoint of our own work in our own state, the following suggestions are tentatively put forward:

1. We might continue to increase our membership, to enroll with us all persons in New Hampshire who legitimately belong with us through their work and interests. This implies an active and continuous campaign to attract new members.

2. We might make our news-letters so interesting that those publications might aid greatly in holding, as non-resident members, all members who move into other states.

3. We might put into operation the plan that Secretary Hartshorn and myself outlined last June (for reasons that seemed to us good and sufficient it could not be put into complete operation this year): viz., to bring out the News-letter regularly-as on the fifteenth of each month-and to give it such interest that members would look forward to its coming each month. 4. We might show our appreciation of the really remarkable little "Handbook of Geology," which Professor Goldthwait has generously written for our academy, by increasing its circulation as rapidly as possible and preparing for a second printing.

5. We might logically select from the fauna, flora, forestry, mineralogy or ornithology of New Hampshire suitable subjects for one or more additional handbooks, starting the preparation before the call for such service to our state, which is becoming

6. We might try to attract to our academic fraternity the workers in our state departments, adopting some of the relationships which have been found advantageous in other states and thereby bringing about increased and enlivened cooperation between state departments and the academy.

7. We might develop especially the interest we have already shown in the educational problems of our state, as by offering our services in connection with the numerous educational activities. This might be accomplished through cooperation with the State Department of Education or independently. The academy might undertake to furnish speakers on scientific subjects wherever such speakers are desired. 8. We might contribute more than we now do to the scientific progress of our state by organizing surveys of local conditions, and by spreading the gospel of improving unfavorable conditions through the greater use of scientific (meaning sensible) methods of procedure.

9. We might begin to look forward to and plan for an academy museum and an academy library, well housed and located as centrally as possible in the state, in charge of a permanent curator and librarian who might act as a bureau of information on academic matters of interest to our members. Such an academy museum might house (1) specimens of animal life (native, wild, migratory, and perhaps domestic) found in New Hampshire, (2) specimens of New Hampshire's wild and cultivated plants, (3) exhibits of woods indigenous to the state, (4) specimens showing geological structure and mineral deposits, (5) models of geographical features, (6) exhibits illustrating prominent industrial and educational activities, (7) photographs and charts bringing out prominent scientific features of the state and scientific discoveries made by our citizens, etc.

An academy library might house files of the reports and proceedings of state academies of science and of other similar organizations. It might include scientific publications specially related to New Hampshire or to work being carried on by members of the academy. A special section might be devoted to scientific works published by New Hampshire men. It seems that academy museums and libraries should aim to present and emphasize the interrelations of the different fields of knowledge, especially the close relation between the welfare and happiness of our people and the application of scientific knowledge to every-day affairs. This is perhaps the main burden of the new humanistic revival that seems to be getting so well started throughout the world. It does not

seem generally desirable that such collections should to any great extent duplicate specimens or volumes already available nearby. They might well bring out the various features of the wealth of their respective states. They might be very valuable in connection with the development of the industries of their states.

In a broader way, helping ourselves by cooperation with others, our New Hampshire Academy is surely ready to take part in activities aiming toward the general cooperation of the academies that are affiliated with the American Association for the Advance ment of Science. Because state academies of science are generally much alike in their organization and are confronted with similar problems, frequent and free interchange of ideas and experience would undoubtedly be beneficial to all. There is a strong movement toward the realization of such cooperative interchange and that movement has been fully recognized by the American Association, which has already furnished valuable aid to the academies affiliated with it. A special committee on academy relations has recently been formed, including representatives of all the affiliated academies and of the executive committee of the association. We expect the new committee to study the problems of academy work and to make suggestions and inaugurate facilities for much progress in inter-academy relationships, making use of the already well-established organization of the American Association. Each affiliated academy has a representative in the council of the association, being thus in direct touch with association affairs, and the academy secretaries are in close relation with the Washington office of the association. The permanent secretary, Dr. Burton E. Livingston, has informed me that he is enthusiastic about the new academy movement and that the facilities of the Washington office are at the disposal of the affiliated academies in all feasible ways. He has expressed the hope that the affiliated academies may soon become virtually local branches of the larger organizations. They stand for the advancement of science in their several states in somewhat the same way as the association has so long stood in the country as a whole.

Several tentative suggestions as to ways in which our New Hampshire Academy might cooperate with the other state academies and with the American Association are mentioned below, but it is clearly realized that considerable study by representatives of all the academies will be needed before such suggestions may be relatively evaluated.

1. We might invite representatives of other academies to our meetings.

2. We might encourage our secretary to carry on correspondence with the secretaries of other acad

emies, reporting interesting points and suggestions to our council or to our academy as a whole from time to time, perhaps occasionally through the News-letter if such an arrangement can be made.

3. We might encourage a similar correspondence between our academy and the permanent secretary of the American Association. Dr. Livingston has said that he will be glad to do his part.

4. We might aid the American Association to secure the attendance of official representatives of the association at our meetings. The association has approved of such representation, but the plan has not yet been generally realized.

5. We might arrange for occasional joint meetings with near-by academies if that proves feasible.

6. We might aid the science workers of other states to establish state academies where there are none at present, hoping that newly-formed state academies might become affiliated in our group with the American Association.

7. We might do what we can toward securing the general realization of the common aims of all the academies through inter-academy cooperation and with help from the association.

With the "Backgrounds" shown us a year ago by Mr. Foster in his presidential address; with a realization of what the New Hampshire Academy of Science has accomplished in the eight years of its existence; and with the courage and faith of a Lindbergh to turn the opportunities of to-day into the realities of to-morrow, let us say, as did Professor B. S. Hopkins, the discoverer of Illinium, in his inaugural address before the Division of Chemical Education of the American Chemical Society at the Richmond meeting last April: "Hats off to the accomplishments of the past; coats off to the accomplishments of the future." WILHELM SEGERBLOM

HESPEROPITHECUS APPARENTLY NOT AN APE NOR A MAN

IN February, 1922, Mr. Harold J. Cook, a consulting geologist and paleontologist of Agate, Nebraska, sent to Professor Osborn an isolated fossil molar tooth which he had found in the Snake Creek beds of western Nebraska. He regarded it as closely approaching the human type and requested Professor Osborn and his colleagues to examine and describe it. After careful study and comparisons Professor Osborn published an article in the American Museum Novitates (April 25, 1922) entitled "Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate found in America." In this brief article the author described the molar as the type of a new genus and species, which he named

Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, "an anthropoid of the Western World, discovered by Mr. Harold J. Cook."

In the type specimen the crown of the tooth had been ground off by long wear to such a degree that the surface of the crown was entirely gone and only the very basal portion was left. This presented an evenly concave surface of wear that was strikingly similar to the worn-down surface of one of the upper molar teeth that had been found by Dr. Dubois at Trinil, Java, near the famous skull top of Pithecanthropus erectus. The Nebraska tooth also had a very wide root on the inner side, which was similar to the wide root on the inner side of the upper molars of Pithecanthropus and of many teeth of American Indians. Hence Drs. Gregory and Hellman, whose report was cited by Professor Osborn, were inclined to think that on the whole the nearest resemblances of the specimen were with men rather than with apes. Professor Osborn stated that "this second upper molar tooth is very distant from the gorilla type, from the gibbon type, from the orang type; among existing anthropoid apes it is nearest to m2 (the second upper molar) of the chimpanzee, but the resemblance is still very remote." After comparing it with the upper molars of the known fossil apes of Asia, as well as with the tooth of an American Indian, the author concluded that it was a new and extinct type of higher primate and that we must seek more material before we could determine its precise relationships to hitherto known races of men and of anthropoid apes. Professor Osborn also alluded to the fact that since 1908 there had been in the American Museum another badly water-worn tooth from the same formation and that Dr. W. D. Matthew had long been inclined to regard that specimen as pertaining to an anthropoid ape.

The scientific world, however, was far from accepting without further evidence the validity of Professor Osborn's conclusion that the fossil tooth from Nebraska represented either a human or an anthropoid tooth. Many authorities made the objection "Not proven," which is raised to nearly every striking new discovery or theory, and in course of time nine suggestions were put forward by responsible critics as to what the type specimen of "Hesperopithecus" might represent other than any kind of ape or man. Accordingly, Professor Osborn requested Drs. Gregory and Hellman to consider these suggestions and to present a more detailed report on the already famous specimens.

The first report of these authors is given in the American Museum Novitates, January 6, 1923. In their analysis of characters of the type they endeavored to distinguish four categories: (1) characters due to long exposure to weathering, erosion and

stream action; (2) characters due to extreme natural wear of the crown; (3) chief characters that the Hesperopithecus tooth shares with both man and the anthropoid apes; (4) characters peculiar to Hesperopithecus. They published a series of photographic views in which the type specimen of Hesperopithecus was compared with upper molars of the chimpanzee, of Pithecanthropus and of the modern American Indian. They gave a table of measurements in which the dimensions and proportions of the type were compared with similar data for the molars of chimpanzees, of Pithecanthropus and of American Indian, concluding that the Hesperopithecus type on the whole came nearest to the second upper molar of a chimpanzee. They also published a series of radiographs which showed marked resemblance in the pulp cavity and roots to both chimpanzee and Indian molars.

In the second report by Drs. Gregory and Hellman on the Hesperopithecus problem (published in the American Museum Bulletin, December 4, 1923) the chief results are that after extended comparisons the authors concluded that the specimen could not represent a lower molar of any carnivore, that none of the other suggestions as to its possible relationships had proved tenable, that the greater number of resemblances of the type appeared to be with the gorilla and the chimpanzee rather than with the orang. It was also noted that "one of us (M. H.) still regards the human resemblances as being of considerable significance, while the other (W. K. G.) leans toward the anthropoid affinities of the type. The range of variability in crown and root characters of the molars both in the Hominidæ (human family) and the Simiide (anthropoid ape family) is so great and so overlapping as to warrant either interpretation." In view of the foregoing, the authors concluded that the "exact generic diagnosis of Hesperopithecus must await further discoveries."

In the hope of discovering more remains of this highly interesting fossil, Professor Osborn sent Mr. Albert Thomson, of the Museum staff, to collect in the Snake Creek beds of Nebraska in the summers of 1925 and 1926. At different times Mr. Thomson was joined there by Mr. Barnum Brown, Professor Othenio Abel, of Vienna, Professor Osborn and the writer. Among other material the expedition secured a series of specimens which have led the writer to doubt his former identification of the type as the upper molar of an extinct primate, and to suspect that the type specimen of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii may be an upper premolar of a species of Prosthennops, an extinct genus related to the modern peccaries. Some of these teeth have the crown worn down and more or less similar to the type of Hes