796 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVIII. No. 727 



the article on Lottia, and from the fact that 

 nowhere else in the publications from his 

 laboratory — not in Burnett's paper on latent 

 period of cross-striped muscle* nor in Robert- 

 son's on heart rate in Daphniaf nor in the 

 "Dynamics of Living Matter," 1906 — from 

 the fact that nowhere else, before the appear- 

 ance of Snyder's April, 1907, paper, do we find 

 another indication, even so slight as that in 

 the Lottia paper, that Professor Loeb had 

 thought of searching directly for physical 

 temperature coefficients, it is quite evident 

 that this part of the idea had not yet fully 

 developed and crystallized in his mind. 



However that may be, the writer wishes to 

 repeat that, until the present writing he has 

 never had access to the paper on Lottia, and 

 was ignorant of the particulars of its contents. 

 He could only quote it indirectly from Robert- 

 son's reference," as he did in the Amer. Jour, 

 of Physiol, XVII., p. 350. Robertson, it is 

 to be noted, expressly states that Loeb found 

 the chemical temperature coefficient to hold 

 good in the artificial maturation of Lottia 

 eggs, and says nothing about a search for 

 physical (non-chemical) coefficients. 



On the other hand, the burden of Snyder's 

 letter to Loeb in the winter of 1906-Y, and 

 of the entire introduction to his paper, " Der 

 Temperaturkoefficient der Geschwindigkeit der 

 Nervenleitung " (April, 1907), and of the 

 " Comparative Study of Temperature Coeffic- 

 ients,'" was in every case a deliherate and 

 direct search for physical, and not chemical, 

 temperature coefficients. 



This search was a distinct departure from 

 the idea of demonstrating that the 2-3 rule 

 of chemical reaction velocity holds good in 

 liying processes, such as is the one and only 

 object in Cohen's "Physical Chemistry," 

 1901 ; in " The Dynamics of Living Matter," 

 1906 ; in Arrhenius's " Immunochemie," 

 Leipzig, 1907, and in all the papers on temper- 



* Jour, of Biol. Chem., 1906, II., p. 195. 



'Biol. Bull., 1906, X., p. 242. 



'Log. cit., p. 242. 



'Warren Triennial Prize Contest, April, 1907; 

 International Congress of Physiologists, Heidel- 

 berg, August, 1907; Amer. Jour, of Physiology, 

 August 1, 1908. 



ature velocities which came from the Cali- 

 fornia laboratory up to October, 1907. 



As to the short-comings in the " Compara- 

 tive Study," as already indicated, that paper 

 was ready to print in March, 1907. It was 

 only received back from the Warren prize 

 committee in the fall of 1907; was sent then 

 to the American Journal of Physiology for 

 publication, but was refused on account of the 

 great number of tables (20-30 pages). It was 

 likewise returned from the Journal of Physi- 

 ology, Professor Langley saying that its his- 

 torical part was unnecessarily long and its 

 text, being a compilation of known experi- 

 ments, rather than description of new, the 

 paper did not come within the scope of his 

 journal. 



For that reason the historical part was cur- 

 tailed as well as nearly all the tables of ob- 

 servations. In that form the paper was re- 

 ceived for publication by the American Jour- 

 nal of Physiology and appeared there a year 

 and a half after having been written. There 

 was no attempt to bring the literature up to 

 the date of publication. The results of Bur- 

 nett, Robertson and Loeb were not incorpor- 

 ated because those papers were not accessible 

 to the writer at the time of compiling the 

 " Conspectus." The only attempt to mention 

 later work was in that hasty and unfortunate 

 foot-note, " It is encouraging to note," etc. 



That reference was written with the feeling 

 of having been complimented by one whom the 

 writer had always thought of as friend and 

 master— complimented in knowing that what- 

 ever his master meant by that paper of Oc- 

 tober, 1907, yet he too, thought well enough of 

 his pupil's work to repeat it, and verify it. 



But, unfortunately. Professor Loeb chose to 

 give that foot-note, which the wording per- 

 mitted, another interpretation. 



And so it happens that the communication 

 in Science for November 6, last, as the reader 

 will readily see, hinges upon the old question 

 as to the relation between teacher and student. 



Had Snyder had a generous master that 

 article would never have been written. 



And now since the question is not a ques- 

 tion of science at all, but one of ethics be- 



