November 29, 1895.] 



SCIENCE. 



735 



quartet of letters in your issue of November 8. 

 I see no ground for invoking the larger public 

 of Science. . Accepting, however, the change of 

 venue, permit me to say, first, I never dreamed of 

 disparaging a rival journal, or of implying in 

 the remotest way either that mine was or even 

 that the Review was not an Archiv. The refer- 

 ence was solely to the twice-considered plan of 

 dropping all reviews, notes, etc., from the Jour- 

 nal and printing only researches as long, per- 

 haps, as those lately printed separately by 

 Profs. Cattell, Fullerton, Nichols, Brandt, etc. 



Still less, if possible, did I dream of making 

 or implying any claim so preposterous as that I 

 or the Journal had ' accomplished nearly every- 

 thing ' ' for the advancement of psychology in 

 America.' In the development of a new aca- 

 demic ' department ' a crucial point is, as I 

 deem it, when an instructor is appointed whose 

 central work and interest is in that line. Such 

 a point, I think, was marked both at the Uni- 

 versity of Pennsylvania and at Columbia by 

 Prof. Cattell's appointment ; at Wisconsin by 

 Prof. Jastrow's; at Toronto by Dr. Kirsch- 

 mann's; at Harvard by Dr. Nichols' ; at Yale 

 by Dr. Scripture's, and long ago at Johns 

 Hopkins by my own. This, and this alone, was 

 my theme. Had it been of the pioneer work, 

 no less crucial, which made these appointments 

 possible, which was done by Profs. James, 

 Ladd, and earlier by President McCosh and 

 others, I should not only have desired to say 

 nearly all they have said, but more. To Prof 

 James, especially, I owe a debt I can never 

 repay, unless by trying to influence him to 

 correct the views in which we more and more 

 widely diiier, some of which he will bear me wit- 

 ness I have earnestly tried to do. 



I am very sorry the name of Toronto got on 

 the list of laboratories affected by our work. It 

 is a mistake I cannot account for, and I am glad 

 to correct the error with due apologies to all 

 aggrieved thereby. The difference too between 

 the wording of the relation between the assist- 

 ant editors and myself. Dr. Sanford desires me 

 to state, was his regrettable mistake, and will 

 be corrected, according to the original an- 

 nouncement, in the next number. 



As to the comparative influence of Yale and 

 Clark upon men who have attended both, I 



prefer to yield all claims rather than divide 

 the" child ; so I do as to Dr. Scripture, and also 

 as to the size of my ' influence ' at Princeton. 

 As Socrates said of the disputations of the 

 sophist Euthydemus, I would rather be re- 

 futed by such arguments than to use them. 



For one, I sincerely hope that in this tran- 

 sition period the psychological atmosphere will 

 not become too tense for a spirit of hearty 

 cooperation, or too lax for healthful or virile 

 competition. 



G. Stanley Hall. 



Clark University, November 18, 1895. 



THE BEEHM CUTS AGAIN. 



To THE Editor of Science : Referring to 

 Science of April 5, 1895, p. 387, and June 21, 

 p. 682, I beg to say that my original charge 

 of libel against Dr. C. H. Merriam, for using 

 the term ' piracy ' in connection with the ap- 

 pearance of the Brehm cuts in the Standard 

 Natural History, is not in the least affected by 

 what appears in Science of October 25, 1895, 

 p. 648. I believe the latter to be substantially 

 correct ; but it relates to an entirely different 

 matter, viz.: action brought to recover damages 

 for alleged breach of contract concerning resale 

 of Brehm cuts and their subsequent use in other 

 connections than the Standard Natural History, 

 The case will be found fully and no doubt fairly 

 stated in the Publishers' Weekly of October 26, 

 1895, p. 716 ; but it is one that I never raised, 

 and know nothing about — only that it has noth- 

 ing to do with the point I made ; and I should 

 not now bring it up again, except to correct a 

 very possible misapprehension on the part of 

 some who may be misled into the belief that 

 my original charge does not remain in full 

 force. 



Elliott Coues. 



Washington, D. C, November 17, 1895. 



quaternions. 

 Editor of Science : — The communication in 

 a recent issue of Science in reference to the 

 formation of an International Society for the 

 purpose of advancing the study of Quaternions 

 is one of great significance to the friends of the 

 subject in this country. The time is certainly 

 fitting for the organization of such a society and 



