456 Mr. Clinton T. Dent [Feb. 15, 



If it be true that with more accurate knowledge of glacial phe- 

 nomena mountaineering skill has improved, and mountaineering 

 possibilities extended, it would naturally be expected that the progress 

 would be more shown in the class of amateurs, as they are termed, 

 than in that of the professional guide. Such I think, and I have the 

 authority of some first-rate guides of long experience to back me, is 

 the case. Much has been said on the comparative skill of guides and 

 travellers. The truth probably is that the best guide of to-day is 

 fully as good a man as the best guide of any other period, while the 

 general standard of mountaineering proficiency among travellers has 

 greatly improved, though there will probably be not a few laudatores 

 temporis adi to question such a conclusion. Mountaineering has, 

 however, developed in such a way that no comparison is possible now 

 between the traveller and guide, and none is needed. For the more 

 difficult work that yet remains to be done, the qualities that the 

 guide shows best are absolutely essential to achieve the best possible 

 success; and so also are the qualities that the traveller has in a 

 great measure developed. The traveller and guide can each 

 supplement the qualities of the other, and they who are interested 

 in the progress of mountaineering ought to be as much concerned 

 with encouraging the development of guiding skill as of advancing 

 their own. In one other respect Science may possibly do much 

 for the future of mountaineering by throwing light on the pro- 

 blems that still environ the question of the effect of high altitudes 

 and diminished atmospheric pressure on man. Here the mountaineer 

 comes in direct touch with the physiologist. The evidence gathered 

 so far has come from three sources. Some from laboratory work, 

 some from experience on the mountain side, and a certain amount 

 from those who have made balloon ascents. So far, it must be allowed, 

 the laboratory work has not been fruitful in practical results ; but 

 the question as recently revived is really still young. In the very 

 few minutes that remain I may be able very briefly to sketch how the 

 matter now stands, and indicate what progress has been made as to 

 its practical solution. 



First, as to the contribution of the mountaineer. On this diagram 

 are indicated certain ascents, selected chiefly because in their descrip- 

 tion special reference has been made to the effect of high altitude on 

 the travellers. The subject has for long received occasional attention. 

 Sometimes in the early accounts surprise is expressed at the absence 

 of effects which have for centuries been noticed and commented on. 

 Thus Deluc on Mont Buet (10,'iOO feet) seemed quite astonished that 

 he did not suffer from mountain sickness. On Mont Blanc, De 

 Saussure was considerably affected and gave an admirable description 

 of the symptoms. De Saussure thought it improbable that scientific 

 observations such as he wished to carry out could ever be properly 

 made at so great a height — and now there is an observatory on the 

 top, and a railway station, as I understand, is in contemplation. In 

 the numerous accounts dealing with Mont Blanc published in the 



