208 



SCIENCE 



N. S. Vol. XXX. No. 763 



all fields of activity, let ua see if there are 

 any facts to indicate that the ratio of 11.6 

 per cent, for Massachusetts birth, or 2.6 times 

 the expected, found for " Who's Who in 

 America " is any higher if one takes a much 

 more select group of names. I think of only 

 two such lists already in existence. Both pos- 

 sess decided objective value. One is com- 

 prised of the names of the thirty Americans 

 included in Profesor Cattell's " Statistical 

 Study of Eminent Men." The other is the 

 roll of thirty-seven in the " Hall of Fame." 



I find that out of the thirty in Professor 

 Cattell's list, eleven veere born in Massachu- 

 setts, or 36.6 per cent. I have gone back to 

 the first census of 1Y90 as being approximate 

 to the time of their birth, on which basis there 

 should have been about 12 per cent., or the 

 ratio is about three times the expected. In 

 the " Hall of Fame " I find fifteen born in 

 Massachusetts, or 40.6 per cent, against about 

 12 per cent, expected. It will be observed that 

 both these ratios are higher than the 2.6 times 

 the expected found for the names in " Who's 

 Who in America." 



If the greatest eminence is more independ- 

 ent of environment than the lesser forms, 

 why then should not heredity and environ- 

 ment working together produce a higher ratio 

 for Massachusetts when the lesser standard is 

 taken than when only the truly remarkable 

 are concerned? If these illustrious char- 

 acters are born such and not made, we get 

 some suggestion of how really superior the 

 stock of Massachusetts must be as compared 

 with any other part of the country. It can be 

 seen from the foot-note" that with the exception 



'"Eminent Men": Massachusetts, 10; Virginia, 

 7; New York, 3; Ohio, 2; Rhode Island, Maine, 

 New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ken- 

 tucky, Tennessee and Louisiana, each 1 ; Vermont, 

 Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, 

 South Carolina and Georgia, none. 



"Hall of Fame": Massachusetts, 14; Virginia, 

 6; New York, 4; Connecticut, 3; Rhode Island, 2; 

 Ohio, 2; Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, 

 Kentucky, Tennessee and Louisiana, each 1; Ver- 

 mont, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South 

 Carolina and Georgia, none. 



It can be seen that, with the exception of Con- 



of Virginia the entire country to the south of 

 New York has done almost nothing in pro- 

 ducing our greatest Americans. If Massa- 

 chusetts has given birth to seventeen times as 

 many men of especial scientific merit as some 

 other sections of the country, she has at the 

 same time produced more nearly fifty or a 

 hundred times as many men, if the highest 

 ranks of eminence be alone considered. 



There still remains, I think, something 

 from the various figures that I have so far 

 analyzed to indicate that New England, and 

 especially Massachusetts, shows a slightly 

 higher aptitude for science than for general 

 intellectual performance taken as a whole. 

 But is this more than might be expected from 

 differences traceable to selection of stocks, to 

 differences in types of mind in those who emi- 

 grated to the various colonies? I can not, of 

 course, answer this question. It is, however, 

 the general impression that the south was 

 peopled, aside from the negroes, by two classes, 

 the gentry and the poor whites. The descend- 

 ants of the cavaliers were people of refinement 

 and polish, rather inclined to hospitality and 

 good living, with interests of a practical, legal 

 and political sort, than to the serious contem- 

 plation which is supposed to have character- 

 ized the puritans. As for the poor whites of 

 the south, they are certainly not the stock 

 from which one would expect scientists. 



The factor " density of population " which 

 Professor Cattell mentions first under his 

 " main factors in producing scientific and 

 other forms of intellectual performance" de- 

 serves, I think, a slight criticism. In the 

 first place we do not find the center for the 

 birth of scientific men (which is around 

 Massachusetts or Connecticut) at all coin- 

 ciding with the general population center, 

 which in 1860 was twenty miles south of 

 Chillicothe, Ohio. Moreover, a list of the 

 states according to density of population at 

 that time, gives us. District of Columbia^ 

 Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, 

 New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Pennsyl- 

 vania, Ohio, Delaware as the ten leading 

 neoticut, the proportionate agreement between 

 these two lists, formed by entirely different 

 methods, is almost perfect. 



