122 
whose country the honors are being conferred. Thus the name 
of Elliott has been chosen, although equally good and important 
work of a similar nature may have been done by other botanists 
in other countries. 
It seems to have been very difficult to secure a completely de- 
tached vote, and one based upon opinions not distorted by fore- 
shortening. Estimate of past achievement will always vary more 
or less with the particular department or line of work most prom- 
inent or fashionable at the time the vote is taken. Thus it is 
quite probable that Mendel, who received the fourth highest vote 
for a place on the frieze, would have received no vote at all, for 
any place, twenty years ago. To us, in 1914, it seems hardly 
probable that he would ever again fail of a majority. 
A voter’s estimate of past workers varies again with what is 
or has been his own main interest. For example, on our ballot 
for names a certain plant pathologist, interested chiefly in the 
physiological phases of plant diseases, relegated Cohn to a “ minor 
place”? because, as stated in his letter, he was “chiefly a sys- 
tematist.” Another voter, interested mainly in the morphology 
and taxonomy of the parasitic organisms causing plant diseases, 
suggested, not only that Cohn should have a place on the frieze, 
but that he was more entitled to it than Pasteur because he was 
“the more distinctly scientific worker and is equally famous for 
important achievement if we keep strictly within scientific lines.” 
Two systematists suggested the elimination of Sachs and Hof- 
meister from the frieze, a vote that would cause almost any 
present-day morphologist or physiologist to gasp. 
A decision of relative merits is greatly facilitated by consider- 
ing what the effect on the advancement of the science would be 
if the work of either of two contributors had never been done, 
Thus, for example, one might compare the importance of De 
Candolle’s discovery of the gymnospermy of Conifers and Cycads 
with any (indeed with all) taxonomic descriptions of these forms 
ever written. 
Certain forms of scientific labor tend to lead the worker almost 
inevitably to place an exaggerated value upon the mere accumu- 
lation of new facts that may not point the way to fruitful hy- 
