tually distinct from one another, are so arranged that it is possible for the student to take them consecutively and practically as one continuous course within a year. In the other group, comprising 30 institutions, both the elementary botany course and the elementary zoology course extend through the entire year. In three institutions both of these schemes are in effect. While it is not the intention of the writer to express his personal views regarding the relative merits of these two schemes, the expressions of opinion elicited from botanists and zoologists at the various institutions where the respective plans are actually in operation, if not conclusive, are certainly suggestive.

In institutions where both elementary botany and elementary zoology are half-year courses, consecutively arranged, so that the student can take both within a year and practically as one continuous course, essentially the only objections offered are that in some places it is possible for the student to take one course, but not the other. Assuming, however, that a year's work is required (as of course it would be by either alternative arrangement) the consensus of opinion is as follows. This arrangement produces results satisfactory to both botanists and zoologists (botanists, 25:1; zoologists, 9:0). It possesses no serious disadvantages (botanists, 25:2; zoologists, 10:0). It is a satisfactory arrangement, both for the student who contemplates further work along biological lines (botanists, 25:1; zoologists, 10:0) and for the student who plans to go no further (botanists, 20:4; zoologists, 7.1).

In institutions where both elementary botany and elementary zoology are full-year courses, wholly independent of one another, the consensus of opinion is as follows. It produces results satisfactory to both botanists and zoologists (botanists, 27:3; zoologists, 16:6). According to the majority of botanists (20:8) it has no serious disadvantages; but the zoologists, by a small majority (12:9), are of the opposite opinion. According to the majority of both botanists (21:4) and zoologists (13:5) it is a satisfactory arrangement for students who plan further work in the biological sciences; but according to the majority of the

both botanists (16:13) and zoologists (12:7) it does not constitute a satisfactory arrangement for the student who contemplates no further work along biological lines.

The arguments in favor of consecutive halfyear courses in botany and zoology are selfevident. This arrangement gives students who will go no further some knowledge of the facts, principles and problems in both fields of biology, and at the same time it constitutes a satisfactory introduction to further work in either botany or zoology. Whether and to what extent it should be attempted to coordinate the two is a question concerning which opinions seem to vary, and in all probability this should be determined in large measure by local conditions. There is little question, however, that if properly coordinated these two courses will accomplish everything which can reasonably be expected of the general biology course, but with the objectionable features of that course eliminated. Advocates of the full-year elementary botany and zoology courses are of the opinion that a half year is not sufficient time for an elementary course in either botany or zoology; that botany and zoology, like chemistry and physics, should be treated as separate sciences; and that the student in either course obtains an introduction to the fundamental biological principles, methods, and facts. The chief objection to this scheme is obvious. The student who is going on with botany or zoology loses the advantage of an early introduction to both sciences, while the student who takes only one year of biological science loses entirely either one phase or the other.

But the object of this paper is not to recommend any specific arrangement of elementary courses in botany and zoology. It is not to settle questions as to the subject-matter of elementary courses in either subject. The primary purpose of this article is to urge, in the interest of the students, teachers, and departments concerned, and in the interest of the biological sciences themselves, that, in elementary courses, botany should be taught as botany and zoology as zoology. The general biol

ogy course is "simply a survival of an early stage in the pedagogy of the subject and has no place in a modern educational scheme." GEORGE E. NICHOLS

SHEFFIELD SCIENTIFIC SCHOOL,

YALE UNIVERSITY

STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE

CERTAIN groups of people interested in the development and application of the sciences in many of the states of the union have established academies of sciences. Some of the academies have developed into institutions exerting considerable influence at the present time, others have flourished for a period and then gradually have declined in their force until now it has become a question whether they should disband or should reorganize. Others have struggled to develop interest for a considerable period in their communities but finally have ceased to exist.

During the past year data have been collected and an attempt has been made to determine the general status and activities of all the state academies in order that each one may know its own relative standing in regard to resources and activities.

tion has been tabulated. The classification of members was arbitrarily limited to eight groups and only aims to indicate the general field of interest of the members. Several academies did not furnish a classified list of their members. Each secretary was asked to state whether the interest in the affairs of the academy by its members was "lively " or "apathetic." Such statements, in some instances, should be taken with reservations because of the personal element or the period of the year in which it was given. Much of the data is self explanatory and needs no comments.

Among the various conclusions that may be drawn from the data the one that is especially evident is that only a small percentage of the scientific people of the country are members of the various state academies. The reason .for this lack of interest and activity is explained by one secretary as being due to the fact that the day has gone by when men interested in widely different special lines of research or activity can profitably meet for the common discussion of their interests."

At the present time nearly all specialists belong to a national society composed of members all of which are interested in the same special science. Such people derive more benefit from this society than they would from a local academy. In order to meet this situation many of the academies have attempted sectional meetings in which those interested in any particular science might convene. This has been successful in a few large academies but in the smaller ones it has failed.

Whatever may be said in regard to the weaknesses of the academies two points should be remembered. First, the academies provide at their general meetings opportunities for considerable social intercourse between people from different parts of their respective states. This social factor has a tendency to promote good fellowship between the various institutions of the state and also to encourage research in the smaller colleges and normal schools. Second, many of the academies are able from funds provided from

state or private sources to publish articles of considerable scientific value which due to their extreme specialization, local or very general nature, would not be accepted by the current journals. If the academies have outlived their general usefulness they can still remain very influential in existing solely as publication centers for special articles.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has recently proposed a plan in which it has invited the academies to affiliate with it. This is not only a very gracious act but one that may stimulate the academies to further and more important activities. DAVID D. WHITNEY, President of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, May 1918, to May, 1919

October 15, 1919

RESULTS OF THE TOTAL SOLAR
ECLIPSE OF MAY 29 AND THE

RELATIVITY THEORY1

THE results obtained at the total solar eclipse of May 29 last were reported at a joint meeting of the Royal and the Royal Astronomical Societies, held on November 6. The stations occupied were Sobral, in North Brazil, and Principe Island. Two cameras were employed at Sobral, the 13-in. objective of the Greenwich astrographic equatorial, and a 4-in. lens, of 19-ft. focus, lent, together with an 8-in. cœlostat, by the Royal Irish Academy. It was realized before the expedition started that the cœlostat was scarcely suitable for observations of such extreme precision as were required to detect and measure the 1 From Nature.

small shift in the places of the stars that might be produced by the sun's attraction. War conditions, however, made it impossible to construct a suitable equatorial mounting, though it is hoped that this may be done before the eclipse of 1922.

The results, to some extent, but, fortunately, not entirely, justified these apprehensions. The eclipse plates taken with the 13-in. (stopped down to 8 in.) are out of focus. Since the focus was good on photographs taken at night a few hours earlier, and also on the check plates taken before sunrise in July, the explanation appears to be a change of figure of the cœlostat mirror, due to the heat of the sun. These plates were compared with the July check plates by using a duplex micrometer. They show an undoubted gravitational shift, the amount at the sun's limb being 0.93" or 0.99", according to two different methods of treatment. The probable error, as estimated by the individual discordances, is about 0.3", but there is reason to suspect systematic error, owing to the very different character of the star-images on the eclipse and check plates. This instrument supports the Newtonian shift, the amount of which is 0.87" at the limb. There is one mode of treatment by which the result comes out in better accord with those of the other instruments. Making the assumption that the bad focus did not alter the scale, and deducing this from the July plates, the value of the shift becomes 1.52".

The results with the 4-in. lens are much more satisfactory. The star-images are well defined, and their character is the same on the eclipse and check plates. As the duplex micrometer would not fit these plates, a keyplate, on which the film was placed away from the lens, was taken in July, and all the plates in turn were placed in contact with this plate and compared with it. The resulting shift at the limb is 1.98", with a probable error of 0.12". The values from the separate stars are in good accord, and they support the fact of the shift varying inversely as the distance from the sun's center; they are thus unfavorable to its being due to refraction,

the meeting. Moreover, Professor Lindemann pointed out that the comets of 1880 and 1882 had traversed this region without giving the slightest evidence of having encountered resistance; as their speed was about 300 miles per second, a vivid idea is given of the extreme tenuity of any medium that they encountered.

The Principe expedition was less fortunate in the matter of weather, but a few plates showed five stars. Since no check plates of the eclipse field could be taken there, another field near Arcturus was photographed, and both it and the eclipse plates were compared with plates of the same fields taken at Oxford with the same object-glass. It was, moreover, necessary to assume that the scale of the eclipse plates was the same as that of the check plate. This is justified by the fact that the diurnal variation of temperature in Principe is only some 4° F., and that there had been no bright sunshine on the mirror before totality. The measures indicate shift at the limb of 1.60", with a probable error of 0.3".

a

It will be seen that the mean of this result and that with the 4-in. at Sobral agrees very closely with Einstein's predicted value 1.75". It was generally acknowledged at the meeting that this agreement, combined with the explanation of the motion of the perihelion of Mercury, went far to establish his theory as an objective reality. Sir J. J. Thomson, who presided, spoke of the verification as epochmaking; he suggested that it would probably have a bearing on electrical theory, but he regretted the very complicated form in which Einstein expressed his theory, and hoped that it might be possible to put it into a form in which it would be more generally comprehensible and useful.

Dr. Silberstein laid great stress on the failure to confirm Einstein's third prediction, that of the displacement of lines in the sun's spectrum towards the red, to the amount of 1/20 Angström unit; this had not been verified, in spite of the careful search made by Dr. St. John and Mr. Evershed. As the probable error of the measures was much less than the quantity predicted, he looked on this

result as final; some people had suggested that the shift might be veiled by a syste matic outward movement of the photosphere, but as Dr. St. John made measures both at the sun's center and limbs, that suggestion was not tenable. Professor Eddington admitted that the failure threw doubt on the validity of some of the steps which led Einstein to his gravitational result; but he contended that the two other successes indicated that the result was right, even if reached by a wrong method.

There was some discussion on Professor Lindemann's method of photographing stars in daylight by the use of red screens. However, the eclipse method seems more trustworthy, and the Astronomer Royal expressed the hope that the eclipse of 1922 might be observed with equatorials. The star-field is not so rich as in the late eclipse, but with longer exposure much fainter stars could be recorded. The eclipse-track crosses the Maldive Islands and Australia, and is therefore fairly accessible.

A. C. D. CROMMELIN

SCIENTIFIC EVENTS

INVESTIGATIONS ON INFLUENZA

THE Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has provided resources to carry on investigations into the cause, mode of transmission and treatment of influenza and its complications.

A commission has been appointed consisting of Dr. G. W. McCoy, director of the hygienic laboratory, U. S. Public Health Service; Dr. W. H. Park, director of the research laboratory, New York City Department of Health; Dr. Lee K. Frankel, third vice-president of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Dr. A. S. Knight, medical director of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Dr. M. J. Rosenau, chairman, professor of preventive medicine and hygiene, Harvard Medical School. Later, Professor E. O. Jordan, of the University of Chicago, and Dr. W. H. Frost, of the U. S. Public Health Service, were invited to join in the work.

Work has already been begun in Washington, New York, Boston and Chicago and may be extended to other places as occasion arises. In this way correlation and cooperation are effected. The object of the commission is primarily to study the cause, mode of spread and treatment of influenza and its complications. Studies are now being made upon the prophylactic value of vaccines against influ enza, common colds and pneumonia, properly controlled. Laboratory researches are being conducted to determine the cause of these infections, and a special study is being made of the bacterial flora of the upper respiratory tract in health and disease. Special consideration is being given to the possibility of a filterable virus being the cause of any of these infections. Cooperation and suggestions have been invited from health officers and others interested.

PROBLEMS OF FOOD AND NUTRITION

THE National Research Council has formed a special committee on Food and Nutrition Problems, composed of a group of the most eminent physiological chemists and nutrition experts of the country. The members are: Carl Alsberg, chief, bureau of chemistry, Department of Agriculture; H. P. Armsby, director of the institute of animal nutrition, Pennsylvania State College; Isabel Bevier, director of department of home economics, University of Illinois; E. B. Forbes, chief, department of nutrition, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station; W. H. Jordan, director, N. Y. Agricultural Experiment Station; Graham Lusk, professor of physiology, Cornell University Medical College; C. F. Langworthy, chief of office of home economics, Department of Agriculture; E. V. McCollum, professor of biochemistry, School of Public Health and Hygiene, Johns Hopkins University; L. B Mendel, professor of physiological chemistry, Yale University; J. R. Murlin, professor of physiology and director of the department of vital economics, University of Rochester; R. A. Pearson, president of the Iowa State Agricultural College; H. C. Sherman, professor of food chemistry, Columbia University; A. E. Taylor, Rush professor