THE AMERICAN MONTHLY [April,. 



EDITORIAL. 



Aristocracy Among Scientific Men. — Of course we all know 

 that persons of high social standing and those who thus rank among 

 the aristocracy mavt and often do, become noted men of science, but 

 we are not now to discuss that fact, as the above title might seem to 

 demand. 



But do you know that there are among scientific workers two classes, 

 the one recognizing, in a broad way, all other scientific workers as 

 equally engaged in scientific work with themselves, and the other class 

 claiming themselves to be of the simon-pure brand while denying that 

 characteristic to some of their fellow-workers who labor in new'er or 

 difterent fields? In other words, have you observed how each new 

 science gets put through a sort of " survival of the fittest" process at 

 the hands of the very men (scientists) who, most of all, would nat- 

 urally foster a new science.? Ferhaps it is on that principle by which 

 a parent, with high ideals in view, chastens its child at least until the 

 latter gets big enough to resent chastisement. 



Now all this signifies that w^e, as microscopists, must stand up bravely 

 under the snubbing process, until we are big enough to whip our kind 

 parents out of their aristocratic notions towards us. 



In Washington we have a Philosophical Society, a Biological Soci- 

 ety, an Anthropological Society, a Chemical Society, a Geographical 

 Society, a Microscopical Society, and some others. There has just 

 been published a " Directory of Scientific Societies of Washington," 

 comprising the five first named, and not including the Microscopical 

 Society. Any outsider seeing this pamphlet will conclude that there 

 are no scientific societies in Washington worth mentioning outside these 

 five. The pamphlet is published by a "joint commission " of fifteen 

 composed of three delegates from each of the '' component societies," 

 and these gentlemen have carefully entitled their pamphlet " Directory 

 of vScientific Societies." They do not say of the scientific societies, 

 which would assert that there are no others, neither do they say of 

 some scientific societies, which would imply the existence of others ; 

 but they hedge with the above phrase, although knowing that strangers 

 will infer tliat there are no other scientific societies here. By personal 

 inquiry we learn that the question of admitting the Microscopical Soci- 

 ety to representation has been discussed among them, and that '' some 

 of the gentlemen did not consider it entitled to rank as a scientific soci- 

 ety, nor microscopy to be recognized as science." Whether the high 

 joint commissioners from the Geographical Society were the ones who 

 had no doubts about their own position, and were fearful about Micros- 

 copy, we are not informed, but we will open our columns to any one 

 who wishes to show Geography to be more a science than Microscopy. 

 We will still further throw down the gauntlet to the anthropologists, 

 and invite them to show wherein Anthropology is a science and Micros- 

 copy not equally so. But, as the microscopists are all ready to begin 

 the discussion, we present in this issue some views as formulated by 

 Dr. Wm. H. Seaman, who, being a prominent member of both the Bi- 

 ological and Chemical Societies, has certainly been recognized by them 

 as a scientific man. 



The writer of this editorial happens to be a member of the three oldest 



