JuLY 26, 1918] 
the smaller ones there is often much difficulty 
in securing the funds which are essential to 
efficient work. A considerable initial equip- 
ment may fail to give the results that might 
be expected because of inability to procure aux- 
iliary apparatus, to secure suitable assistance 
in making or reducing observations, or to pay 
necessary expenses of publication. 
Furthermore, attention should be called to 
an important fact which is referred to in some 
of the more detailed answers to the questions 
of the circular and which has been emphasized 
in earlier considerations of the subject of aid 
for astronomical research made by the chair- 
man of the Committee of One Hundred. 
The help most needed in a large majority of 
cases is found to be that of a trained assistant 
to aid in any and all the duties which are 
called for from an astronomer and especially 
in computing and other routine work. For 
such purpose a person not subject to the dis- 
tractions affecting the ordinary graduate stu- 
dent is desirable. To furnish an observatory 
with well-equipped aid of this character would 
often increase its output by an amount far in 
excess of the necessary outlay. 
Cuartes R. Cross, Chairman, 
Subcommittee on Research Funds 
GEOLOGICAL TERMS IN GEOGRAPH- 
ICAL DESCRIPTIONS 
Last January Dr. John L. Rich, of the Uni- 
versity of Illinois—now Captain in the In- 
telligence Division of the War Department— 
sent a letter to Science expressing his regret 
that no mention of geological dates was made 
in a geographical article on the “ Block Moun- 
tains of New Zealand,” by Dr. OC. A. Cotton, 
of Victoria College, Wellington. I have been 
waiting to see if other geologists would sup- 
port Captain Rich’s view, or if any geograph- 
ers would take sides with Dr. Cotton; but the 
discussion has not been continued. As Dr. 
Cotton was more or less influenced in his 
method of presentation by several conferen- 
ces that we had on this subject during an ex- 
eursion with Professor James Park, of Dune- 
din, across the New Zealand block-mountain 
district in 1914, I wish to say a few words on 
SCIENCE 81 
the principles that his method of presentation 
involves. 
The first point to bear in mind is that geo- 
logical science is much more actively culti- 
vated by trained experts, and is therefore 
much further developed than geographical 
science. The second point is that the develop- 
ment of geographical science will be best pro- 
moted if geographers follow a discipline of 
their own, by giving the same single-minded 
attention to geography that physicists give to 
physics, astronomers to astronomy, philol- 
ogists to philology, and so on. The third 
point is that the best methods of preparing 
geographical descriptions are still in discus- 
sion, and hence experiment on various meth- 
ods, each one consciously analyzed and in- 
tentionally adopted for the time being, is a 
helpful means of discovering the kind of treat- 
ment best adapted for various needs. 
Cotton’s article is an admirable experiment 
in the analytic, systematic and regional treat- 
ment of a geographical problem. It is to be 
hoped we may have many more pure geo- 
graphical cultures of this kind. The gain 
that such articles contribute to the imperfectly 
developed science of geography fully com- 
pensates, in my opinion, for any loss that the 
omission of geological dates entails upon the 
thriving science of geology. Cotton’s success 
must therefore not be measured by the dis- 
satisfaction that his article may create among 
geologists, but by the satisfaction that it cre- 
ates among geographers. They should recog- 
nize that this excellent study gives, after a 
careful historical review of the problem under 
discussion, a critical analysis of the origin of 
the Block Mountains; that the results of the 
analysis are systematized or standardized suffi- 
ciently for New Zealand needs; that the sys- 
tematized standards are effectively used in 
the final pages on regional description; and 
that the graphic illustration of all its parts is 
exceptionally good. The only adverse com- 
ment that I am disposed to make is that the 
unlikenesses of the three phases of work, ana- 
lytic, systematic and regional, are hardly 
enough emphasized to impress them upon the 
reader; and that the introduction of some 
