1913] Editoriais 491 



sion and Solution at the next annual meetings of the organizations 

 most directly concerned. 



John Hendley Barn hart, N. Y. Botanical Garden. It is an un- 

 pleasant task to criticize adversely any scheme which has f er its avovved 

 object the advancement of biological science in America. I must con- 

 fess, however, that I can see nothing in Prof. Mathews' proposal except 

 a new society and a new Journal, and I believe that we have already too 

 many of both. There may be a few men in America who are broad 

 enough (without being too shallow) to wish to receive currently Jour- 

 nals occupying such widely separated fields as the Joiirn. of Infec. Dis- 

 eases, the Psychological Rev., and the Botan. Gas.; but their number 

 must be few indeed. If ability to read all three of these Journals appre- 

 ciatively is the criterion of a " biologist," I greatly fear that there would 

 not be a sufficient membership to support an "American Biological 

 Society." 



D. H. Bergey, Univ. of Penn. I am not in favor of the Organiza- 

 tion of any new societies at the present time unless it can be done 

 through the amalgamation of the societies in existence to-day. Even if 

 this can be done, I fear that it would make the new society so large and 

 unwieldy as to render the amalgamation undesirable because of its size. 

 The expense connected with membership in the societies already in ex- 

 istence forbids the encouragement of the Organization of new societies, 

 because the bürden is greater than it should be. In fact, in the last 

 two years I have feit obliged to resign from several societies in which 

 I had long held membership in order to accept membership in newer 

 societies, which I feit might be more beneficial to me ; but I do not feel 

 that I would care to resign from any additional societies for that reason, 

 unless those societies were to amalgamate in one large Organization, 

 such as is proposed for the Amer. Biolog. Soc'y. 



H. BuNZEL, U. S. Dep't of Agric. I am strongly in favor of the 

 plan Professor Mathews suggests for the Organization of an Amer. 

 Biolog. Soc'y. 



Theo. C. Burnett, Univ. of Cal. The idea of an Amer. Biolog. 

 Soc'y is a good one. Can you be sure of the financial scheme? It 

 looks to me a little doubtful. 



A. J. Carlson, Univ. of Chicago. A greater coördination of the 

 biological interests of the country is certainly desirable. The only 

 question at issue is the most efficient or practical way of bringing it 



