546 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIX. No. 1006 



shows clearly tliat we are dealing with a chem- 

 ical reaction. We must, therefore, exclude 

 the interpretation that diffusion is the deter- 

 mining factor.' 



Another suggestion is that the result is due 

 merely to the fact that the majority of the 

 cells are more accessible to the reagent or less 

 resistant to it than the rest, so that more cells 

 are killed in the first minute than in the sec- 

 ond and so on. But if this were the case we 

 could not, after a lapse of ten minutes (when 

 the loss of resistance already amounts to 125 

 ohms), restore the tissue to its initial resist- 

 ance by replacing it in sea-water. This can 

 be done and there is no evidence that the tissue 

 is in any way injured by such treatment with 

 NaCL* The same piece of tissue may be 

 treated with NaCl (for five minutes) and re- 

 placed in sea-water several times each day for 

 ten days in succession without showing any 

 sign of injury." 



This leads us to the following conclusion. 

 Since the effect of NaCl is within wide limits 

 completely reversible, without production of 

 injury, the conception of the chemical dynam- 

 ics of living protoplasm here developed applies 

 not only to reactions which produce death hut 

 also to reactions which involve no injury and 

 which form a normal part of the activity of 

 the cell. This conclusion is fully confirmed 



7 There are other important reasons opposed to 

 the suggestion that diffusion is the determining 

 factor. One of these is the length of time re- 

 quired for the process. If tissue is transferred 

 from sea-water to sea-water diluted with one or 

 two volumes of distilled water, there is a change 

 of resistance which continues until equilibrium 

 has been restored by diffusion. This process at 

 18° C does not take more than ten- minutes, 

 whereas nearly three hours would be required for 

 the reactioii with NaCl which we have been meas- 

 uring. 



8 This and other experiments show that the in- 

 crease in the conductivity of the protoplasm is not 

 to be attributed to an increase in the concentra- 

 tion of electrolytes within the cell but rather to a 

 decrease in the viscosity of the protoplasm (or to 

 an increase in some other factor which facilitates 

 the passage of ions). 



9 Science, N. S., 36: 350, 1912. 



by experiments with a variety of other sub- 

 stances. W. J. V. OSTERHOUT 

 Laboratory op Plant Physiology, 

 Harvard University 



TEE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOB THE 

 ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE 



section h — anthropology and psychology 



At the recent annual meeting of the American 

 Association for the Advancement of Science held 

 at Atlanta, Georgia, December 29 to January 2, 

 Section H — Anthropology and Psychology — ^par- 

 ticipated in four sessions. Tuesday afternoon was 

 devoted to a " general interest ' ' session at which 

 Professors Max Meyer and Lightner Witmer 

 spoke. Wednesday morning was given over to a 

 joint meeting with the Southern Society for Phi- 

 losophy and Psychology; Thursday morning to a 

 joint session with Section L — Education, and 

 Thursday afternoon to a joint session of all three 

 of these organizations. In all some twenty-two 

 papers were presented. 



The following officers were elected: Vice-presi- 

 dent of the Assooiatio7i and Chairman of the Sec- 

 tion, Dr. Clark Wissler, of the American Museum 

 of Natural History; Member of the Sectional 

 Committee (to succeed Dr. G. A. Dorsey), Pro- 

 fessor Lightner Witmer, of the University of 

 Pennsylvania; Member of the Council, Professor 

 Max Meyer, of the University of Missouri; Mem- 

 ber of the General Committee, Professor L. R. 

 Geissler, of the University of Georgia, 



The following twelve papers were presented 

 under the auspices of Section H: 



The Present Problems of Physiological Psychol- 

 ogy: Max Meyer. 



Psychologists generally are beginning to realize 

 that the study of consciousness is only a second- 

 ary, an auxiliary branch of psychology. But it 

 is a mistake to think that psychology can be de- 

 fined simply as the study of behavior. The study 

 of plant behavior is the business of the botanist. 

 Nothing forbids, of course, interest in plant be- 

 havior on the part of the psychologist save com- 

 mon sense, which would call a man a botanist if he 

 is more interested in plant behavior than in hu- 

 man life. In a similar way the study of animal 

 behavior must be regarded as primarily the task 

 of the zoologist. And the study of human be- 

 havior seems to be largely the province of the 

 sociologist (including under "sociology" as a 

 special branch the science of education). Is then 



