Febeuabt 26, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



315 



ington, but went on and prepared it in its 

 final form for publication in The Popular 

 Science Monthly. 



There was little published comment, and it 

 was not until 1899, sixteen years later, that Dr. 

 Geo. H. F. Nuttall, now of Cambridge Uni- 

 versity, England, in his classical paper " On 

 the Role of Insects, Arachnids and Myria- 

 pods as Carriers in the Spread of Bacterial 

 and Parasitic Diseases of Man and Animals — 

 A Critical and Historical Study," published 

 as one of the Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports, 

 Vol. Vni., Nos. 1 and 2, that the full force of 

 King's argument began to be appreciated. 

 Nuttall here incorporated practically all of 

 King's arguments and added many data 

 gathered from other writers as well as his own, 

 and, as he has since publicly stated and as he 

 has personally remarked to me, it is remark- 

 able that the 1883 paper was not soon followed 

 by critical investigation. As has been shown 

 so many times since, however, and strikingly 

 in the case of Sambon's insistent claims for 

 the carriage of pellagra by Simulium, a theory 

 in no way comparing to King's for the sound- 

 ness of its basis, conclusions based on epidem- 

 iological findings or upon coincidences are 

 always dangerous. Where the range of a sus- 

 pected host coincides with the range of a dis- 

 ease, it is possible or even probable that the 

 suspected host may have some relation to the 

 disease, but of course transmission experi- 

 ments are necessary for absolutely definite 

 conclusions. 



And so it happened that, apparently without 

 knowledge of King's paper, but based upon 

 his own work in the transmission of filariasis 

 by Culex and upon the then recognized trans- 

 mission of the causative organism of Texas 

 fever of cattle (sometimes called bovine ma- 

 laria) by a tick as demonstrated by Smith and 

 Kilbourne, Manson suggested to Eoss the 

 necessity for accurate laboratory work on 

 malaria with mosquitoes as possible hosts. 

 How triumphantly Ross carried out this 

 magnificent piece of research is known to all 

 the world, but it is a pity that it had not been 

 done years earlier. Of course the laboratory 

 technique in 1883 was not what it was in 1897, 



and of course, although Laveran had already 

 discovered the Plasmodium malarioe, prac- 

 tically nothing was known of its life-cycle in 

 1883, but is it not possible, indeed is it not 

 probable, that, had our fellow member. Doctor 

 King, possessed the laboratory facilities and 

 the technique at the time when he was so full 

 of his great idea, he would have solved the 

 problem, would have confirmed his anticipa- 

 tions, would ultimately have received the Nobel 

 prize, and would have gone down to history as 

 one of the greatest benefactors of the human 

 race? 



L. O. Howard 

 U. S. Department of Agricultuke 



THE COMMITTEE OF ONE EUNDBED ON 



SCIENTIFIC BESEAECH OF TEE AMEB- 



ICAN ASSOCIATION FOB TEE 



ADVANCEMENT OF 



SCIENCE 



The committee held its second meeting in 

 Houston HaU, the University of Pennsylvania, 

 Philadelphia, on the afternoon of December 

 28, 1914. Mr. Pickering was in the chair, and 

 the other members present were : 



Messrs. E. W. Brown, Franz Boas, J. MeK. Cat- 

 tell, A. D. Cole, Edwin G. Conklin, Chas. E. Cross, 

 Chas. B. Davenport, H. L. Fairchild, Karl E. 

 Guthe, Boss G. Harrison, L. O. Howard, George E. 

 Hulett, Chas. S. Howe, W. J. Humphreys, W. W. 

 Keen, Frank E. Lillie, D. T. MacDougal, C. F. 

 Marvin, C. L. Mees, George T. Moore, T. H. Mor- 

 gan, Herbert V. Neal, Edward L. Nichols, E. B. 

 Eosa, Wm. T. Sedgwick, Frank Schleslinger, Ed- 

 gar F. Smith, Henry B. Ward and Arthur G. Web- 

 ster. 



After a statement by the secretary and in- 

 troductory remarks by the chairman, the 

 committee listened to reports from the sub- 

 committees on research funds, on research in 

 educational institutions, on the selection and 

 training of men for research, on the promo- 

 tion of appreciation of research and on plans 

 for the subcommittee on research in indus- 

 trial laboratories. Each of the reports was 

 fully discussed, most of the members of the 

 committee in attendance participating. 



On the recommendation of the executive 



