October 4, 1895.] 



SGIENGE. 



453 



UNIVEBSITY AND EDUCATIONAL NEWS. 

 Pkofessoe W. a. Setchell, of Yale 

 University, has accepted a call to the chair 

 of botany in the University of California, 

 vacant through the removal of Professor E . 

 L. Greene to the Catholic University of 

 Washington. 



A SUIT has been brought by Yale Univer- 

 sity against Storrs College to determine the 

 disposition of the Government appropria- 

 tion (about $20,000 a year) to agricultural 

 colleges. This money was paid to Yale 

 University from the time the fund was ap- 

 propriated, in 1862, till it was diverted to 

 the fund of Storrs College, in 1893. Since 

 this date the money has been tied up by 

 reason of the suit of Yale University to 

 restrain the Treasui-er from paying the 

 money to Storrs College. 



Professor Henry Talbot has been ap- 

 pointed associate professor of chemistry in 

 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 



The following changes have been made 

 in the medical faculty at Yale University : 

 Dr. Cheney and Dr. Henry L. Swain have 

 been appointed to professorships; Dr. Oli- 

 ver T. Osborn and Dr. Louis S. DeForest have 

 T)een made assistant professors, and Mr. C. 

 J. Bartlet instructor in bacteriology. 



Queen's College, Belfast, Ireland, at- 

 tains its jubilee this year. It has been, 

 however, resolved to postpone the celebra- 

 iiions till next year, when it is hoped that 

 many alumni from different parts of the 

 world will find it possible to be present. 



The number of Freshmen admitted to 

 Harvard University by examination is 465, 

 as compared with 418 last year. The scien- 

 tific school shows a gain of 22 students; 

 104 were admitted this year as compared 

 with 84 last year. 



The Freshman Class at Williams Col- 

 lege, the largest in its history, numbers 

 -about 124 members. The Freshman Class 



at Boston University, also the largest yet 

 assembled, shows an increase of 50 over last 

 year. 



COBBESPONDENCE. 

 PROFESSOR HALSTED REPLIED TO. 



Editor of Science: Your number of Sep- 

 tember 6tlL appeared while I was in Europe, so 

 that I am late in replying to an extraordiuary 

 charge made against me on page 309 by Profes- 

 sor Halsted, as follows: 



' ' This letter of Beez incited Dr. McClintock to an 

 examination of Beltrami's article and a paper on it 

 under the title ' On the early history of the non- 

 Euclidean geometry, ' where, among other mistakes, 

 he makes one peculiarly entertaining. He says, p. 

 145, Bulletin, Vol. II., of Saccheri: ' He confessed to 

 a distracting heretical tendency on his part in favor 

 of the hypothesis anguli acuti, a tendency against 

 \rhioh, however, he kept up a perpetual struggle 

 (diuturnum proelium). After yielding so far as to 

 Tvork out an accurate theory anticipating Lobat- 

 schewsky's doctrine of the parallel-angle, he appears 

 to have conquered the internal enemy abruptly, 

 since, to the sutrprise of his commentator, Beltrami, 

 he proceeded to announce dogmatically that the spe- 

 cious hypothesis anguli acuti is positively false.' 

 '\^^lo would suspect that all that is a pure fairy tale 

 evolved by Dr. McClintock from his mistranslation 

 of a passage immediately announced by the two Latin 

 vpords be fortunately retained in parenthesis '? ' ' 



This is all that Professor Halsted now says of 

 my paper which he names and from which he 

 quotes. He does not mention that half of that 

 paper consists of a brief but careful resume of 

 the claims of Gauss, to which he devotes so 

 large a part of the review to which I am reply- 

 ing, nor does he recollect that at the time when 

 my paper appeared he wrote me (April 17, 

 1893), "I was delighted with your article on 

 the Early History of the Non-Euclidean Geom- 

 etry," giving no hint of dissatisfaction, but go- 

 ing on among other things to refer to an earlier 

 paper of mine as 'your epoch-making article 

 on the Non-Euclidean Geometry.' He sent 

 me a second letter on April 27, 1893, again of 

 the friendliest and most appreciative sort, but 

 not referring to the paper in question ; showing 

 that the half on Saccheri as well as the half on 

 Gauss met at that time with no disapproval on 

 his part. 



