Carnot; M. Tasilly, professor of physics, to succeed M. Daniel Berthelot, and M. Guérin, professor of botany, to succeed M. Guignard.

DR. EDWARD LUKAS, of the University of Graz, has been called to a professorship of folklore in the University of Tübingen.

as parts of one great Reality. But what is matter? What is life? What is mind? What is the place

of mind in physical nature? How are the truths of the various sciences to be unified into a great worldview? These are all questions over and above the specific programs of any one science: they are metaphysical, meta-biological, and meta-psychological questions. As for God, "I have no interest in that

PHILOSOPHY AND THE SCIENCES NOTHING is more to be desired in the world of scholarship to-day than a sympathetic understanding between philosophers and scientists. Different as are their problems and their points of view, their tasks are vitally interrelated; and it is in the hope of promoting in some degree at least the necessary rapprochement that these lines are written.

The aim of every scientist, as I should conceive it, is to understand as intimately and in as great detail as possible some limited portion of our vast universe: the aim of the philosopher, on the other hand, is, not to fill out the gaps in scientific knowledge as it stands to-day, but to understand the facts that the particular sciences have revealed in their relation to all that is, to see things in the light of the whole. Being finite, no human thinker would dare pretend that this "synoptic view" can ever be more than the merest glimpse; but it is his hope that some such glimpse may be attained, nevertheless, however distorted in time and space that glimpse may be.

The astronomer, the physicist and the chemist, in their various ways, are interested in the composition of matter, the laws of energy and the structure of the material universe; the biologist seeks to understand the structure and activities of organisms, the conditions which make life possible and the laws of its evolution; the psychologist, when he remains within his proper field, examines in a precisely analogous fashion into the phenomena of the human (and animal) mind, with a view to analyzing and classifying these and formulating the laws of their succession and correlation. In cultivating their respective fields, the physical scientist definitely excludes vital phenomena and the whole realm of animal or human mentality from consideration; the biologist ignores the laws of non-living matter and, together with the physicist, disregards the influence of consciousness; and the psychologist concerns himself with those matters which both groups of his fellow-workers purposely and properly neglect. Moreover, in each of these domains the scientific investigator restricts himself to the question of how matter, life and mind, respectively, work-he does not inquire into their inherent rature, and still less into their relationships

if the follower of science is a man as well as a scientist he has an ineradicable interest in God which only philosophy can intellectually (I do not say emotionally or practically) satisfy. And the great and to many persons absorbing question of the correlation of religion and science is also a distinctively philosophical problem.

Again, philosophy and the sciences seem to differ fundamentally in their attitudes toward the world. The attitude of the scientist is a detached, disinterested, impersonal one: he wishes to know what are the facts about the world, quite regardless of their positive or negative value to himself or to other men; and he sets forth as his ideal the explanation, or at least correlation, of these facts in terms of the allcomprehending principle of causality, and in exclusion of any question of ends or purposes. But the philosopher is supremely interested in those very things which the scientist for his own purposes intentionally ignores: his paramount concern is that very "realm of ends" or of values which is quite properly taboo to the scientist. From this standpoint, the contention of many present-day scholars that ethics should be treated as an inductive science, "the natural history of goodness," is a complete perversion of the true place of moral philosophy in the general scheme of things. That there is a place for "ethology," the science of character as Mill proposed it, and for the "history of moral ideas" in Westermarck's phrase, there can be no doubt; but the former of these is a branch of psychology, and the latter a division of history, and both of them are scientific and so non-philosophical disciplines. The subject-matter of ethics as moral philosophy is the nature of the good as the supreme end of conduct, for as that of philosophical logic is truth, and of esthetics beauty-the value and validity of moral ideas, not merely their existence or even their evolutionary development.

When we consider religion, which is so closely interrelated with science, on the one hand, and philosophy, on the other, a quite different situation confronts us. Ethics is, indeed, a system of ideas, and so conceivably amenable to scientific treatment; and perhaps the same might even be said of theology, regarded as a theory of God and our relation to Him. But religion is not a system of ideas, religion is not

theology, religion is not a theory about life or about God or about our relation to Him: religion is life, it is our relation to God. Philosophy, as has been said, may intellectually satisfy man's yearnings for the infinite, and may attempt to set forth the relation between the truths of science and the truths underlying religion; but let us avoid confusing these purely intellectual endeavors with the living practical reality!

Finally, careful reflection over what has gone before should, it would seem, inevitably impel the reader to the conclusion which led in the first place to the writing of what has been here written, namely, that philosophy and the sciences, far from being enemies, rivals or even strangers, are inextricably interdependent. To science the philosopher must go for the facts he wishes to correlate, interpret and evaluate: no longer can one hope to obtain the data for philosophical investigation from the depths of his own inner consciousness, but at every step the philosopher is dependent on what science has accomplished through the use of its own empirical and analytical methods. Metaphysics is dependent on the work of the physicist, the biologist and the psychologist; esthetics, ethics and the philosophy of religion are dependent on the investigations of the psychologist and the historian; and so with the other philosophical disciplines. But there is another side to the picture also; for if the scientist contributes the materials for the philoso

pher to work upon, equally true is it that the philosopher has something to contribute to the scientist which may be to him in his wider-reaching human nature of equal value, namely, breadth of interest and the synoptic spirit. Each science in itself has a narrow range of interest; but under the influence of the great philosophical ideal of the unity of all knowledge and of all truth the work of the scientific investigator may be broadened, deepened and illumined to a degree which will carry him far beyond the confines of any one field, however penetrating his work in that field may be.

JARED SPARKS MOORE

THE JACOBS CAVERN MASTODON AGAIN IN SCIENCE for October 14, 1921, Mr. J. L. B. Taylor, of Pineville, Mo., announced his discovery, in the well-known Jacobs Cavern located on his farm, of certain perforated and engraved bones. All but one of the eight or nine specimens recovered subsequently disintegrated and this surviving bone carried the incised figure of what appeared to be a mastodon. The discovery was of extreme interest and so, although Jacobs Cavern was excavated in 1903 by Professors Peabody and Moorehead, the American Museum ulti

mately undertook a reexamination. This was done in part by myself with results that did not warrant extended excavation. I also gave the engraved bone a prolonged examination, and on December 28, 1923, in open meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, declared it as in my opinion a plain fraud.

Last year there was published as Part 6 of Volume 19 of the Anthrop. Papers of the American Museum of Natural History a brief paper entitled "The Antiquity of the Deposits in Jacobs Cavern." The author is Dr. V. C. Allison, Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, and his paper purports to be chronologic determinations based on the study of a stalagmite taken from Jacobs Cavern. Such studies are of interest to archeology, but until examined by one or more competent geologists the precise conclusions of this paper can hardly be accepted. Furthermore this paper gives the unfortunate impression of being, incidentally at least, an effort to rehabilitate the abovementioned mastodon engraving.

Space prohibits extended consideration of the subject here, but I must submit the substance of my own findings with respect to this engraved bone. They are as follows: (1) The said carved bones were admittedly found in a heap of loose dirt on the cave floor and their relation to the remaining deposits is therefore indeterminable. (2) It is difficult to understand why seven out of eight bones-unless tampered with should have completely disintegrated, when the surviving specimen is in a fair state of preservation, as are also 3,000 or more bone fragments collected in the cave in 1923. (3) The cave fauna reveals no extinct species. (4) Archeologists are not familiar with bones and shells perforated after the manner of those under discussion (see illust. p. 593, Natural History, Vol. 21). (5) The perforation of the surviving bone is fresh-looking and shows no evidence of the piece having been suspended for any length of time by a cord. (6) The specimen as a whole shows little, if any, of that wear and polish commonly found on used artifacts. (7) Archeologists are not familiar with the indicated style of art on bone in America. (8) The engravings on the specimen give the appearance of having been fitted into the well-preserved surfaces of the bone. (9) In the case of the mastodon engraving the color of the artificial incision surfaces is quite different from that of the natural bone surface. (10) All incisions show such fresh surfaces and sharp angles as could hardly have been preserved on an ancient specimen. (11) The incised lines are of such depth, regularity and precision as to preclude their having been executed with flint tools.

THE SEX RATIO OF ADULT TRICHINAE THROUGHOUT the literature vague and contradictory statements prevail concerning the intestinal phases of the life-history of Trichinella spiralis. These relate especially to the sex ratio, and to data relative to the abundance and duration of the adult worms in the intestine of the host. They are due largely to the tedious and imperfect methods which have been employed for collecting the intestinal stages.

While engaged in experimental work on this parasite the writer evolved a simple and effective method of obtaining the adults in large numbers. This consists of stripping the contents of the intestine of the infected animal into a physiological salt solution and screening the adults from the débris with a small-mesh wire screen. By using this method it has been very easy to make exact observations on the intestinal worms.

White rats were fed heavy doses of trichinized flesh and beginning with the third day were killed and examined at short intervals. From one specimen, opened at the beginning of the third day, 2,176 worms were recovered; of these 1,196 were females and 980 were males. At the end of the third day 73 adults, of which 36 were males, were found in the intestine. The next rat, opened at the end of four days, had 12 adults, of which 8 were females and 4 were males, which would indicate a very light infection. At the end of six days 51 males and 63 females were found. The condition was about the same at the end of eleven days, when 73 males and 81 females were taken from the intestine. Thirteen days after feeding one of the rats contained 451 adult worms, of which 324 were females. At this time there seems to be a dropping off in the numbers of both sexes, for at the end of sixteen days only 4 adults were found, one of which was a living male. One of the females was dead and found in the feces. The diaphragm was well filled with the migrating larvae, indicating a very heavy infection. Subsequent examinations made at the end of eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one and thirty-four days did not yield any adults, while in each instance the migrating larvae or the encysted larvae (encystment beginning at the twentieth day) were found to verify the infection.

These data indicate that at the outset the males and

A NEW LOCALITY IN CHINA FOR LYTTONIA RICHTHOFENI KAYSER

DURING the years (1909-1915) that the undersigned, now of the Fifth Avenue High School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was stationed at the University of Nanking, China, as head of the department of biology and geology, he did much collecting from the Chihsia Limestone at Chihsia Shan. A representative collection of the material thus obtained was sent to the Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, where it has been studied. In November of 1926, Dr. Ichiro Hayasaka, head of the department of geology of the Japanese Imperial University of Formosa, visited the museum and went over this material with the undersigned. At that time it was discovered that two or three specimens of a brachiopod, tentatively identified as Oldhamina decipiens Waagen, were really small specimens of Lyttonia richthofeni Kayser.

Considerable interest attaches to this discovery because the finding of this diagnostic Permian fossil in the Chihsia limestone indicates that this limestone can no longer be classed as Dinantian, as placed by Dr. A. W. Grabau, of the Chinese Geological Survey of Peking, but instead must be regarded as Permian. WILLIAM MILLWARD

RENNERDALE, PENNSYLVANIA

PHOTOMETRY

MR. IRWIN G. PRIEST has been good enough to send me a copy of his letter to you, dated June 21, concerning the description in my recent book "Photometry," of the instrument developed by him for heterochromatic photometry (pp. 244-5).

While agreeing, of course, that his instrument is in no wise identical, either in principle or in use with Helmholtz's "Leucoscope" it still appears to me that "Leucoscope Photometer" is a not inappropriate description of the instrument which is, in essence, a photometer in which a color match is obtained by means of the rotatory dispersion of quartz, and a brightness match by means of polarization prisms. Nevertheless it is clear that as Mr. Priest is the in

ventor of the instrument he must necessarily be entitled to object to having any name attached to it which, in his opinion, is liable to lead to misunderstanding. I can, therefore, assure him that should a further edition of my book be called for, the alteration will certainly be made. In the meantime I feel sure Mr. Priest will agree that the description of the instrument which I have given in the text of my book is in no way misleading.

JOHN W. T. WALSH

QUOTATIONS

RESEARCH IN MEDICAL PRACTICE RATHER more than a year ago the Ministry of Health submitted to the British Medical Association a

scheme for cooperative research by panel doctors. This scheme has now been considered by the Insurance Acts Committee of the association in consultation with representatives of the Ministry of Health, and certain conclusions have been arrived at which are likely to exercise an important influence on the future of research work in general practice. Research work by general practitioners, it is felt, should not be restricted either to panel doctors or to panel patients, but should be open to all medical men who may desire to undertake it. It should be voluntary and it should be unpaid. Moreover, the subject or subjects "should be capable of being dealt with by the individual practitioner in a simple manner." This last recommendation is likely to meet with the approval of all who understand the difficulties attending any research work in general practice; it is, moreover, justified fully by the nature of the information of which the profession stands at present in need. The late Sir James Mackenzie, who was the first man in this country to recognize the necessity of continuous research work in general practice, emphasized again and again the fact that knowledge is still lacking about the most simple of human ailments. He was wont, for example, to insist that the nature of pain and the mechanism of its production are unknown, and to ask how, in these circumstances, physicians could hope to deal successfully with this commonplace symptom. His challenge still stands; but the new proposals suggest that it is about to be taken up in the spirit in which it was delivered.

The British Medical Association takes the view that the organization of the investigations to be carried out should be entrusted to itself, and proposes to make use of its machinery of divisions and branches to facilitate the work. There can be no reasonable objection to that plan provided that care is exercised to prevent research work being reduced to the level of a mere questionnaire. True research, as Sir

Ronald Ross has so often pointed out, springs from the spirit of curiosity and the spirit of wonder and is, consequently, difficult to organize. Research workers are born, not appointed. Thus it may be hoped that there is room in the new scheme for the encouragement and assistance of individuals or groups of individuals who have, in the vast field of general practice, begun to cultivate plots of their Such workers have, in all periods, been the real architects of progress. They submit, as a rule impatiently, to the restrictions of "inquiries" which are addressed to them by others, but they possess always great funds of patience and of self-denial for use in their chosen labors. To discover such workers and to help them is a task of no little difficulty and delicacy, but it is a task well worth carrying out. There is room, indeed, in any liberal scheme

own.

of medical research for the individual as well as for the group or team. Information which can be obtained in the form of answers to set questions ranks by common consent lower in point of value than that kind of knowledge which inspiration and devotion are able to win.-The London Times.

SCIENTIFIC BOOKS

Introduction to the History of Science. Volume I, from Homer to Omar Khayyam. BY GEORGE SARTON, Associate in the History of Science, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Published for the Carnegie Institution of Washington by The Williams and Wilkins Company, Baltimore, 1927. p. i-xi, 1-839.

THIS large volume is the first of several volumes in preparation which mark the most comprehensive synthesis in the history of science thus far conceived. It registers an epoch in the writing of history. Sarton defines science as "systematized positive knowledge" and to this definition gives a broad interpretation to include not only physical science, mathematics and medicine, but also the early history of philology, for "the discovery of the logical structure of language was as much a scientific discovery as, for example, the discovery of the anatomical structure of the body," also the history of religion, for "until relatively modern times, theology was an intrinsic part of science, and not only that, but, in the opinion of most men, all other sciences were subordinated to it." The clash between Greek ideals and the oriental religions (chiefly Judaism and Christianity) is "one of the greatest intellectual conflicts of history." The author includes also parts of the history of music-"indeed the theory of music was considered a part of mathematics almost until modern times." Some attention is

paid to pseudo-science-astrology, alchemy, physiognomy, oneirology-for "it is not always easy to distinguish a pseudo-science from one which is sound but imperfect." Very little space is allowed to the work of magicians because "their purpose was but too often of a sordid nature," and quite different from the ideals of theologians and scientists. The author says: "Theologians were trying to reach the same goal as the men of science; they generalized prematurely; they were walking along the same road, but much too fast. Magicians did not follow that road at all; they were sidetracked or turned in hopeless circles." There is nothing in Sarton's study to support the doctrine that magic stimulated experimental science. "Magic is essentially unprogressive and conservative; science is essentially progressive; the former goes backward; the latter, forward."

The present volume is an introduction to the history of science from Homer to Omar Khayyam. The marking of the initial and end periods by these great literary names may seem strange to one who does not remember that in Homer there are matters of interest on geography, astronomy, anatomy, medicine, surgery and metallurgy, and that Omar Khayyam was a distinguished writer on mathematics and astronomy. Early Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese science is not given in this volume because "it is not yet possible to give a continuous account"; this early science will be presented in separate chapters later when it is expected that "our knowledge of these difficult subjects will be materially improved."

The treatment is chronological. From the ninth century B. C. down through the eleventh century, the subject matter is presented in thirty-four periods varying in length from two centuries to half a century. The comprehensiveness of Sarton's scheme appears from his consideration in each period of the contemporaneous science of all the countries of the old world which were scientifically active at that time. The broadened viewpoint thus gained may be illustrated by the seventeenth century which Henry Hallam, with a vision confined to Europe, had called the nadir of the human mind; Sarton, in a more comprehensive view, finds the first half of that century "a golden age in at least four countries-Arabia, Tibet, China and Japan." The heading of each period after the first two bears the names of one or two outstanding scientists; thus we have "the time of Thales and Pythagoras," "the time of Hsuan Tsang," etc. It is of interest to notice that of the thirty-four names, sixteen are Greek or rather Hellenistic, five are Roman, three are Chinese, two are Byzantine, one is Persian, three are Muslim, one is Western European. The treatment of the different periods is according to a uniform plan. First comes a survey of science

in the period considered, then a presentation of the individual scientists classified by the subjects (religion, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, geography, alchemy, medicine, historiography, law, or philology) in the cultivation of which they were respectively most conspicuous. A very compressed outline of the life and work of each writer is given, followed by a bibliography which in the case of prominent men like Galen covers several pages. Sarton says: "The best way of using this work is to read the introductory chapter and the first section of succeeding chapters, and to consult the other sections only as far as may be necessary to satisfy one's curiosity or to find an answer to a definite question."

Sarton's work is written under the dominance of his conviction that the proper procedure is not to pursue first the history of some one science and then take the history of other sciences, one at the time. This tandem arrangement is repugnant to his ideals. One should study, not the history of the sciences, but the history of science. Moreover, one should not confine one's attention to any one country like Greece or India, but should take a world view of scientific achievement. Such a synthetic process alone will afford a full picture, free of distortion, of the intellectual progress of mankind.

The work is prepared with freedom from national bias and with painstaking care. If the great discovery of the precession of the equinoxes is attributed to the Greek Hipparchos, rather than to the earlier Babylonian astronomer Kidinnu, it is because the positive proof of Kidinnu's achievement has been published only recently, while Sarton's volume was going through the press.

The endeavor of the author, we take it, has been not to produce a book which would rank among the "best sellers," but a book which would be a real vade mecum to all serious students of the history of science. It ought to be in every college library. Readers having already a modicum of knowledge of the history of science, at least in one field, are the ones who will profit most by this publication. Dr. Sarton has the scientific and keen philosophic insight which are necessary for successful historical research in this field. He and many other modern lovers of systematized positive knowledge, when contemplating the achievements of science since the time of Homer in lifting man to higher intellectual endeavor, would hardly hesitate to invoke the scientific spirit in the words which Lucretius addressed to Epicuros: "Thou, father, art discoverer of things, thou furnishest us with fatherly precepts, and like as bees sip of all things in the flowery lawns, we, O glorious being, in like manner feed from out thy pages upon all the golden maxims, golden I say, most worthy ever of