290 
of the Association from the 6th to the 13th 
meeting, which were available for distribu- 
tion to members and especially to libra- 
ries. There were 33 libraries and journals 
on the regular mailing list. The financial 
exhibit showed a balance in the treasury 
of $177.47 ; total receipts $492.25 ; expendi- 
tures $314.78. He suggested the desirabil- 
ity of having a summer meeting with the 
American Association for the Advancement 
ofScience. The Association had lost several 
members since May, 1900, when a provi- 
sional report had been made. Professor 
Wm. Anderson of London, an honorary 
member, died Oct. 27th. Dr. A. L. T. 
Schaper, of Harvard Medical School, had 
left this country, having been appointed 
a professor at the University of Breslau, 
Prussia. There were now 116 active and 
9 honorary members, total, 125. 
No reports were received from the dele- 
gate to the executive committee of the Con- 
gress of American Physicians and Surgeons, 
nor from the committee on anatomical pecul- 
jiarities of the negro, nor from the com- 
mittee on table at Naples. The committee 
on anatomical nomenclature reported prog- 
ress. 
The President appointed a committee 
consisting of Drs. Huber, Carmalt and 
Barker to report nominations for delegates 
to the executive committee of the Triennial 
Congress and a new member of the execu- 
tive committee of this Association. 
Dr. Huntington then read the Presiden- 
tial address, taking for his subject ‘The 
Morphological Museum as an Educational 
Factor in the University System.’ 
The following papers were read : 
The Use of Wet Specimens: Dr. Hommes, 
Philadelphia. 
The ery of the general public for practi- 
cability and the desire of the recent graduate 
for rapid success, and strangely enough the 
theory of our medical schools, ‘science 
SCIENCE. 
[N.S. Von XIII. No. 321. 
for its own sake,’ are all tending to the 
same point, namely, the training of students 
to be scientists before they have been edu- 
cated as physicians. As a resultant of these 
forces, our medical schools are getting away 
from their original intent of turning out 
practising physicians and are evolving one- 
sided specialists, which again, strangely 
enough, the tendency to laboratory and sec- 
tion teaching only seems to increase, by 
compelling men to choose certain subjects to 
the exclusion of others. Following this has 
come a disinclination to instruct and a neg- 
lect of teaching method, so that, as has 
been said in anatomy, ‘aman who has a 
book, a subject and a scalpel, ought to be 
able to work it all out for himself.’ The 
most obvious improvement in our branch is 
the teaching in small sections; next the 
methodical daily apportionment of the 
work. If we could have our way, we would 
not only assign the same dissection for the 
same hour, but if it were possible we would 
have our sealpels ply together with the same 
unison as the violin bows in a well-trained 
orchestra. To be ahead of the assignment 
is a crime, to be behind it far better, if it 
implies not sloth nor ignorance, the most 
careless students being the most rapid 
slashers. Methodical and clean dissection 
implies a foreknowledge of the structure, 
but it is difficult toimpress the fact that the 
dissecting room is a laboratory and not a 
library alcove, didactic reading should be 
done at home, the only use of the book be- 
ing in connection with the cadaver. Ex- 
planations should be from the wet specimen 
and not merely a worded exposition. The 
wet specimen of muscle, artery or joint 
should be kept continually before the stu- 
dent as a pattern, to supply the defects of 
his own work, to study the deeper connec- 
tions or to review the more superficial which 
must necessarily be cut away and, at the 
conclusion of the dissection, for a review of 
the whole part. Equally for the alumnus 
