MARCH 22, 1901.] 
plans of study laid down in the technical 
high-schools of Germany, in the technical 
schools of England and of our own country, 
may be profitably followed. 
In 1897, we expressed the view which 
seems thoroughly applicable now and which 
will perhaps bear repetition here. We said: 
“Tt seems, therefore, that the demand of 
the present time and of the immediate 
future can be met only by broadly educated 
men: by men who have been trained, not 
only in chemistry itself, but in the great 
principles of physics as well. A good tech- 
nical chemist must be first of all’a thor- 
oughly educated chemist. After that, to 
attain the highest success in this country, 
he must be educated in the principles of 
engineering; the production and applica- 
tions of heat; the production and appli- 
cations of electricity ; the transmission of 
power, the movement of liquids ; in general, 
the means whereby the reactions of chem- 
istry may be carried out in a large way 
We need, therefore, chemical engineers, and 
these in the nature of the requirements 
must be broadly and thoroughly educated 
men. While they must be trained in the 
work of the research laboratories, which 
are being organized in connection with 
many of the great industries, they must 
likewise be prepared to put into practical 
operation in a large way the results of the 
researches they have been called upon to 
make.” 
These truths have not changed and if 
these conditions of education and training 
are fully met, the progress of our chemical 
industries must be greatly augmented, the 
science must, by reaction, be actively ad- 
vanced and following the experience of 
our German confréres in the words of 
Meyer, we may look hopefully forward, and 
in the near future proudly backward, to 
accomplishments greater than the world 
has ever known. Wu. McMortriez. 
NEW YORK. 
SCIENCE. 
4538 
MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE.* 
In the opening paragraphs of his most 
memorable contribution to knowledge 
(‘Man’s Place in Nature,’ 1863), Huxley 
made mention of certain similarities be- 
tween the activities of anthropoids and 
those of men; and, while the burden of 
the work was devoted to structural homol- 
ogies, the initial keynote was retouched 
here and there throughout the discussion. 
Huxley’s classic contribution to anthropol- 
ogy needs no encomium; it was a pioneer’s 
mile-mark of progress, erected under diffi- 
culties ; and it suffices that all later trav- 
elers have found it in the direct way of 
experiential truth. Yet it is worth while, 
now and then, to take stock of advances. 
subsequent to, and largely consequent on, 
the Huxleian declaration. 
Since Huxley’s pioneer work, a host of 
investigators have carried forward the study 
of structural homologies connecting the 
genus Homo with lower genera and orders; 
and to-day the physical similarities are 
among the commonplaces of knowledge, 
whatsoever the background of philosoph- 
ical opinion concerning cause and sequence. 
During the last decade or two the investi- 
gators themselves, with scarce an exception, 
have gone one step further, and now include 
sequence of development from lower to 
higher forms as among the commonplaces 
of opinion, whatsoever the background of 
metaphysical notion as to cause. There 
the strictly biologic aspect of the question 
as to man’s place in nature may safely be 
considered to rest; there has been little 
advance in opinion beyond that of the 
pioneer in 1863; but the data have been 
multiplied, and the knowledge and opinion 
have been diffused widely. 
Since Huxley’s epoch-marking memoir 
*Address of the retiring President of the Anthro- 
pological Society of Washington, delivered before the 
Washington Academy of Sciences and Affiliated So- 
cieties, February 26, 1901. 
