search Defense Society, and the president and honorary treasurer of the association, Sir Thomas Barlow and Dr. Hale White, have joined the committee of the society. It is hoped that in the coming years there will hardly be any need for disputes with antivivisection societies, and that the society's best opportunities for usefulness will be found in wide, non-aggressive educational work. WE learn from Nature that the pensions granted during the past year by the British government include the following: Mrs. Charlton Bastian, in consideration of the services to science of her late husband, Dr. Charlton Bastian, and of her straitened circumstances, £100; Mrs. Minchin, in consideration of the scientific work of her late husband, Professor E. A. Minchin, and of her straitened circumstances, £75; Mrs. Albert Günther, in consideration of the scientific work of her late husband, Dr. Albert Günther, and of his distinguished services to the British Museum as keeper of zoology, £70; and Mrs. Roland Trimen, in consideration of the eminent services of her late husband to biological science, and of her straitened circumstances, £75. UNIVERSITY AND EDUCATIONAL NEWS THE will of Mrs. Robert W. Bingham, wife of Judge Robert Bingham, of Louisville, Ky., a graduate of the University of North Carolina, gives to the University of North Carolina $75,000 a year for the establishment of professorships and ultimately a capital sum producing this amount. The professorships are to be known as Kenan professorships, in memoriam of Mrs. Bingham's father, William R. Kenan, and her uncles, Thomas S. Kenan and James Graham Kenan, graduates of the university. The value of this bequest to the University of North Carolina is more than a million and a half dollars. FRANCIS A. THOMSON has resigned from the faculty of the State College of Washington to accept the deanship of the school of mines at the University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. DR. WALLACE BUTTRICK, member of the executive committee of the Rockefeller Founda tion and director of its China Medical Board, is in England on the invitation of a department of the British government to confer with educators and officials in Great Britain concerning public education. Ar the University of Chicago the following promotions from associate professorships to professorships have been made: Basil C. H. Harvey, of the department of anatomy; Horatio Hackett Newman, of the department of zoology; J. Paul Goode, of the department of geography; Walter Sheldon Tower, of the department of geography. From an assistant professorship to an associate professorship: Arthur C. Lunn, of the department of mathematics. AT the New Hampshire College A. W. Richardson, of the University of Maine, has been appointed assistant professor in charge of the poultry department to succeed R. V. Mitchell, and G. A. Minges, of Iowa State College, has been appointed instructor in chemistry. The chemistry department has lost two members owing to the war: Professor G. A. Perley has been granted leave of absence for the period of the war and is serving as first lieutenant in the division of chemical engineering, U. S. Army, and Arnold J. Grant has gone to the second Plattsburg Camp. DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE THE PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: A matter in which there is a considerable divergence between the practise of different laboratories is that of the method of publication of their results. A number of laboratories publish their own bulletins, either as separate paperз or as periodical volumes. Others publish in the scientific and technical press, either in one or two journals or in a number of different journals according to the subjects dealt with. Naturally, the best method of publication will depend to some extent on the nature of the work published and the character of the laboratory. In the case of a purely technical laboratory publishing a large number of papers dealing with one special, technical subject, the method of publishing separate bulletins mailed directly to a selected list of those interested may be quite satisfactory, but if the publications of a laboratory cover a large range of subjects it would seem to be preferable to publish each paper in the journal which deals with the department of science most akin to that of the subject dealt with. If this is not done, there is a grave danger that the paper may be missed by the abstract journals and may fall out of sight altogether, while in any case the publication of single bulletins throws a heavy burden on any investigator engaged in compiling a bibliography of a subject. In this laboratory we have confined the publication of our scientific communications to the recognized technical and scientific journals, and I find that our first fifty communications have been published in no less than seventeen different journals, twenty-eight being published in journals relating to some branch of physics, five in chemical journals, and seventeen in photographic publications. Since it is an advantage for all the papers issued from one laboratory, which, naturally, have a common interest, to be available in some collected form, we issue periodically bulletins containing abridgments of all our scientific papers, the second volume of these bulletins containing the papers published during 1915 and 1916 being now ready. It would be of interest to learn the views of others interested in this question as to the relative advantages of the issue of separate bulletins as compared with publication in the current press. C. E. K. MEES RESEARCH LABORATORY, POPULAR SCIENCE UNWARRANTED deductions have been drawn in a recent popularization of science by one of our eminent paleontologists, Dr. H. F. Osborn, not however in his own field, but in a special field apparently unfamiliar to him. Lest others may be misled into thinking that the deductions are based on good evidence, may I be permitted space to call attention to them. Dr. C. D. Walcott has recently reported1 the discovery in an Algonkian limestone of fossils having appearances and associations which give valid reasons, though not positive proof, for thinking them to be bacteria. The finding of these fossils in a limestone rock in association with fossil algae as well as other related facts lends support to his previous suggestion2 that this limestone was probably partially deposited by bacterial action in a manner similar to that described by G. H. Drew3 as taking place to-day in the tropical waters about the Bahamas. A reference back to the article by Drew shows that the bacterium which he found causing the depositation of CaCO, is a denitrifier which he has named Bacterium calcis. It is an organism similar to other denitrifiers, possessing the power to reduce nitrates to nitrites with the later disappearance of the nitrite accompanied by the formation of ammonia and a gas which, from the few simple tests made, was in all probability free nitrogen. Like other denitrifiers, this organism was found to possess the power of utilizing organic carbon in the form of sugars and even possessed the power of secreting ectoenzymes capable of liquefying organic nitrogen compounds like gelatin. The precipitation of the calcium carbonate is explained as due to the increase in the concentration of CO, ions caused by the advent of (NH),CO,, which is partially ionized into NH, and CO, ions. If the validity of the evidence that the fossils found are bacterial in nature is admitted, and it is assumed that the particular fossils in question are of the organisms which were instrumental in having caused the deposit of limestone, then the deduction might be drawn that these fossils are those of denitrifying bacteria. The fact that Dr. Walcott refrained from making this deduction is quite probably due to the fact that he had a feeling that it would be based on too many "ifs." Turning now to the article by Dr. Osborn⭑ 1 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 1: 256-257, 1915. 2 Smiths. Misc. Coll., 64: 76-156, 1914. 3 Papers from Tortugas Lab., 5: 8-45, 1914, Pub. 182, Carn. Inst. Wash. 4 Sci. Monthly, 3: 289-307, 1916. we find that he has not been as cautious and that he sees in Dr. Walcott's fossil bacteria certain resemblances in appearance and structure to nitrogen-fixing bacteria from soil (by context the bacteria referred to appear to be Azotobacter and related forms). He is not dismayed by the fact that the metabolism of marine, denitrifying, lime-depositing bacteria, and that of the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in soil which utilize both atmospheric nitrogen and organic carbon, are in a sense opposed to each other. Still less is he troubled by the very great difference between the metabolism of nitrogen-fixing bacteria and the autotrophic, nitrifying bacteria like Nitrosococcus and Nitrosomonas organisms which do not utilize organic food and derive their nitrogen from ammonium salts instead of free nitrogen). In fact, he apparently thinks of the nitrifying and the nitrogen-fixing bacteria as essentially identical, as appears in the following statement (p. 292): The great antiquity of even higher forms of bacteria feeding on atmospheric nitrogen is proved by the discovery, announced by Walcott in 1915, of a species of pre-Paleozoic fossil bacteria attributed to "Micrococcus" but probably related rather to the existing Nitrosococcus which derives its nitrogen from ammonium salts. The illogical nature of this statement may be brought out by substituting groups more familiar to paleontologists than are bacteria. Thus we have: The great antiquity of Carnivores feeding on flesh is proved by the discovery of a species of pre-Paleozoic mammal attributed to Herbivores, but probably related rather to Rodents who derive their food largely from grain and nuts. Needless to say that Dr. Osborn would be the first to see the weakness in such a statement. In reality this paraphrase does not exaggerate the illogical nature of the original statement, though it may appear to do so to the layman unfamiliar with the fact that great differences in these tiny organisms are very frequently hidden behind superficial resemblences in appearance. The almost universal uniformity in protoplasmic structure of living species of bacteria and their universal possession of a definite membrane which gives them definite form will cause bacteriologists to wonder at the statements on the following page of Dr. Osborn's article where he says: The cell structure of the Algonkian and of the recent Nitrosococcus bacteria is very primitive and uniform in appearance, the protoplasm being naked or unprotected. Any one who looks at the uniform black of the fossil organisms in the microphotographs given and who realizes that these are pictures of fossils and not of living organisms will be skeptical in regard to the evidence on which this statement is based. Statements based on evidence of the sort furnished which claim that the presence in the Algonkian of nitrifying, denitrifying or nitrogen-fixing bacteria has been shown appear like a pyramid of speculation supported on an apex of fact. They have, however, already misled a bacteriologist into an acceptance of one of these claims, for I. J. Kligler" says in a recent paper (p. 166): Finally Walcott's discovery of bacteria closely resembling our nitrogen fixers of the soil is added proof of the primitiveness of these microbes. It is because of the great interest of the findings by Drew and Walcott, that this word of warning has been uttered to protect science from conclusions which others have drawn from them. If this is not done there is danger that the next time reference is made to their work it will be in some textbook as a positive statement that nitrifying, denitrifying or nitrogen-fixing bacteria, or all three, have been shown to exist as far back as the Algonkian. R. S. BREED N. Y. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, MAN AND THE ANTHROPOID TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: In the July 27 number of SCIENCE Prof. Mattoon M. Curtis devotes a column and a half to a criticism of the " common error " that man is a lineal descendant of the anthropoid apes. "The evident implication," he tells us, "is that the 5 Jour. Bact., 165–176, 1917. extant anthropoids, orang, gibbon, gorilla and chimpanzee are intended." He proceeds to cite Duckworth to prove that this is an error, and concludes, so far as one can judge of his meaning, that man and the anthropoids are "not genetically related"-an amazing non sequitur. One may parallel his argument in some such form as this: The existing Nordic peoples are currently asserted to be descendants of primitive races of man. The evident implication is that the extant primitive races, negroes, Australians, Red Indians, and Polynesians are intended. But Professor Ripley has recently shown that none of these races, constituted as they now are, figured in the ancestral history of the Nordic race. This may relieve our anxieties lest we might be descended from savages. While we do not know as much about such creatures as we might, it is perfectly clear that there is nothing to the absurd tradition that we Nordics are descended from them or they from us. It appears to be a sound principle that groups showing inverse developments are not genetically related, and it is well known that the Nordics are unusually light-colored while the savage races are remarkably dark; that the high and straight nose of the Nordic and his blue eyes are not to be found in these so-called inferior races of mankind; while most of them display thick lips which do not appear in the Nordic race. And so on-but this surely is a sufficient reductio ad absurdum. Who believes that the human race is descended from the existing anthropoid apes? Who ever did that knew anything about it? How could it be so? How could prehistoric human beings be descended from anthropoids still living, unless, like Rider Haggard's "She," they were endowed with eternal life to outlive their descendants? Surely the writer can not but know that the current assertion means and can mean only that man is descended from the same ancestral stock as the anthropoid apes. What that ancestral stock was like, and how far and in what directions its living descendants have departed from it, is the problem which the 66 scientists (whom he puts in quotes" apparently intended in some obscure derogatory sense) are trying to find out, by the inferential evidence of anatomy, physiology, and kindred sciences, and by the direct but as yet scanty evidence of paleontology and archeology. The final paragraph opens with a curious sentence which I quote: Whether "scientists" are entitled to believe what they please or are to be guided by observations and verifications is perhaps an open question. Possibly I am mistaken and Mr. Curtis means by "scientists" the followers of Mrs. Eddy. I don't know their principles very well, but very possibly they do consider themselves entitled to "believe what they please irrespective of evidence other than the assertions of "Science and Health." But surely no scientific man-without quotes-thinks himself entitled to believe anything regarding science save upon the evidence of observations and conclusions made and verified by himself and others. Nor does anybody else. The attitude is not peculiar to science. It is the ordinary man's attitude towards the common world about us; and science has no other attitude than that. It is difficult to see in this letter anything save an attempt to discredit theories which the writer, without knowing much about them, does not wish to believe. I can hardly suppose that many readers of SCIENCE will take the argument seriously, in spite of a not inconsiderable dialectic skill. But however appropriate in some theological journal it appears somewhat in the category of "eccentric literature" in its present surroundings. W. D. MATTHEW SCIENTIFIC BOOKS Bibliography of William Henry Welch, M.D., LL.D., 1875-1917. Prepared by WALTER C. BURKET, M.D., with foreword by HENRY M. HURD, M.D. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press. 47 pp. 4°. This is a notable contribution to medical bibliography, in the special sense of the term, which implies an exhaustive and accurate index of all the books and periodical papers under a given subject or author, as distinguished from the bibliophilic sense, in which a book, incunabula or manuscript is described, like an object in natural history, in such a complete and unmistakable manner that its identification is always possible from the description. The scattered scientific papers and the varied public activities of Professor Welch are here set forth, for the first time, in a strict chronological order, which will be most useful to future medical historians and biographers. No one, for instance, could gain any just conception of the versatile and genial scientific work of Virchow or Weir Mitchell who has not gone over the "Virchow-Bibliographie" of 1901 or the catalogue which Mitchell himself prepared in 1894. As much of the best scientific literature of medicine is buried in the endless files of medical periodicals, medical bibliography, as standardized by Billings and Fletcher, enjoys the status of firearms in the early days of the far West-" sadly missed when badly wanted." The Welch bibliography, as Dr. Hurd tells us in the preface, has required the investigation of years, and is now printed because the interruptions of the present war have prevented the publication of the collective writings. In the first half of Dr. Burket's list (1875-1900), we find the larger scientific contributions of Welch, the great laboratory physician, his early investigations of the pathology of pulmonary edema (1875), glomerulonephritis (1886), the structure of white thrombi (1887), his Cartwright lectures on the pathology of fever (1888), his discoveries of the staphylococcus which infects the edges of wounds (1891), and (with Nuttall) of the bacillus aerogenes capsulatus (1892), now of immense moment in Europe as the cause of gas infection in gunshot wounds, his synthesis of the many nondescript diseases caused by this bacillus (1900), his experiments (with Flexner) on the effects of injection of diphtheritic toxins (1891-2) and his monographs on thrombosis and embolism (1899). In his later period, Welch has been content to see his pupils carry out investiga tions inspired by him, so that the latter half of the bibliography, while replete with contributions on purely medical themes, is characterized by those addresses on public occasions in which Welch always acquits himself with the grace and charm of some distingué French academician. As one who has had latterly to devote much of his time to the public good, Welch, like Dr. Johnson's Mead, has "lived more in the broad sunshine of life than any man." Many of the papers listed in this bibliography are described as unpublished," which perhaps accounts for the appearance of the bibliography before the actual collected writings. Among, these, it is to be hoped that the many charming extempore talks at the Johns Hopkins Historical Club will be included. On such occasions, Welch, when the humor strikes him, improvises delightfully upon a set theme, like some genial musician of the past. The well-known "Ether Day Address" on "The Influence of Anæsthesia upon Medical Science" (1896) was written out without preparation in a railroad car, as he traveled to Boston, a fair example of his habit of improvisation. The two addresses on the evolution of scientific laboratories (1896) and the interdependence of medicine and science (1907), the latter also written out en route for Chicago, are perhaps the most interesting of Welch's contributions to medical history. Here, as everywhere, he has furnished young and old with food for thought, and often with new ideas. Dr. Burket is to be congratulated on the excellence and accuracy of his work, which follows the bibliographic norms set by the Surgeon General's Library. It is a most timely contribution. In the present emergencies, no man has labored more zealously and faithfully for the welfare of his country than William H. Welch. F. H. GARRISON ARMY MEDICAL MUSEUM SPECIAL ARTICLES WHAT SUBSTANCE IS THE SOURCE OF THE LIGHT IN THE FIREFLY? IN at least three groups of luminous animals (fireflies, ostracod crustacea and mollusks), |