JuLy 14, 1899. ] 
titia, concluding that Linneus meant by it 
Prunus domestica Damascena, while Gray ap- 
plied it to Prunus spinosa, and Walter to Prunus 
angustifolia. Walter H. Evans describes a new 
branch from Alaska. <A fascicle of Book Re- 
views, Notes for Students, and News complete 
the number, which is the concluding one of 
Volume XXVII. 
AT the annual meeting of the American Med- 
ical Association Dr. George M. Gould, of 
Philadelphia, proposed that the publication of 
the Index Medicus should be undertaken by the 
Association. He moved the following resolu- 
tion, which was referred to the Board of 
Trustees : 
WHEREAS, the suspension of the publication of the 
Index Medicus is a deplorable event, which will result 
in greatly increased labor on the part of medical men 
in their literary work, and seriously hindering the 
progress of medical science, practical as well as 
literary. 
Be it therefore Resolved, That the Executive Com- 
mittee of the American Medical Association appoint 
a committee of three members of the Association to 
take charge of the publication of the periodical, per- 
fect plans for the same and engage the service of an 
editor and of such editorial assistance as may be re- 
quired ; also to choose a publisher and to make con- 
tracts with him for the printing, distribution, etc., of 
the work all in such manner as to continue the high 
standards of accuracy and bibliographic usefulness so 
- well established by the previous publishers. 
Resolved, That the Treasurer be instructed to pay 
all bills of such Committee in payment of necessary 
expenses of such editing and publication, providing 
that this outlay does not exceed annually $3,000. 
Dr. H. C. MuLieER, of Utrecht, Holland, is 
preparing to publish an International Journal 
of Linguistics, which is to follow the lines of the 
International Zeitscrift fiir Sprachwissenschaft, 
which was discontinued after the death of its 
editor, Dr. Techmer, of Leipzig. 
DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 
THE U. S. NAVAL OBSERVATORY. 
I HAVE been very much interested in the dis- 
cussions which have appeared in SCIENCE re- 
garding the Naval Observatory, but, so far as I 
can learn, certain points have been overlooked 
which ought to be brought out very plainly. 
In the first place, it was really intended by 
SCIENCE. 57 
those inembers of Congress who were influen- 
tial in having the institution established that it 
should be devoted chiefly to scientific work. 
The label of ‘Depot of Charts and Instruments’ 
was added to it, and the plea of utility was em- 
ployed, because it was feared that the public 
would not support a scientific institution. For 
this reason, also, the institution was placed 
under the Navy Department, since the salaries 
of the professors and officers engaged in astro- 
nomical work would come from the pay of the 
Navy and would not appear under the Observa- 
tory appropriations. 
Though a number of eminent men have been 
in charge of the Naval Observatory, the chief 
criticism to be made regarding it would seem to 
me to be the lack of a continuous, well-defined 
policy. Our Navy has been built up at times 
and then been allowed to run down, and the line 
officers have had but little to do. At such 
times they want control of everything con- 
nected with the service, and the scientific work 
of the Observatory has had to go to the wall. 
This was the case for some years before the 
War of the Rebellion, and also about 1882. Of 
course, a number of the line officers who have 
been at the Observatory have been able men, 
who, with time enough given them, could learn 
anything or do anything. The reason why 
they did not do well in astronomical work 
usually was that it took them too far from the 
profession for which they had been trained. 
Logically, I think the Naval Observatory 
should be placed under scientific management 
and taken from the Navy, but, as affairs are 
really managed under our government, with a 
chance for the methods of the practical poli- 
tician, [am not so sure. Several years ago an 
attempt was made to change the organization of 
the Observatory, and the Naval Committee of 
the House of Representatives gave a hearing 
to those interested in the matter. Judging 
from that hearing, several questions of this 
kind will have to be answered in the present 
discussion. 
If the work of the Naval Observatory is 
compared with that of other large observa- 
tories in this country, both as to quality and 
cost, has not the naval management been as 
good as any other in this country ? 
