506 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIV. No. 616. 



to place in Westminster Abbey a memorial 

 tablet commemorating the life and influence 

 of Mr. Herbert Spencer, but though the appeal 

 was supported by many men of science and 

 letters it was rejected. The reason why the 

 Dean withheld his consent to this unobtrusive 

 memorial of a great philosopher is not clear; 

 and the Daily Chronicle has recently revived 

 interest in the movement with the object of 

 inducing him to reconsider his decision, or, 

 failing this, to secure some other national 

 memorial of Spencer's work. From the opin- 

 ions of a number of distinguished men pub- 

 lished in our contemporary, it is evident that 

 much disappointment is felt at the failure to 

 find a place in the Abbey for a simple me- 

 morial tablet to Spencer, but there is a differ- 

 ence of opinion as to whether steps shotild be 

 taken to establish a national memorial to him 

 in some other form. Among the men of sci- 

 ence who consider it would be a reproach to 

 leave Spencer's memory unhonored are Lord 

 Avebury, Professor Clifford Allbutt, Dr. Bas- 

 tian, Sir Michael Foster, Mr. Francis Galton, 

 Sir Joseph Hooker, Professor M'Kendrick 

 and Professor Poulton. There is, however, a 

 strong feeling, expressed by Sir Norman 

 Lockyer, that while no national memorial to 

 Darwin exists outside Westminster Abbey, it 

 would be undesirable to attempt to raise one 

 to Spencer by public subscription. Lord 

 Kelvin goes so far as to remark: "I have 

 never been of opinion that the philosophical 

 writings of the late Mr. Herbert Spencer had 

 the value or importance which has been at- 

 tributed to them by many readers of high 

 distinction. In my opinion, a national me- 

 morial would be unsuitable." Sir William 

 Huggins also hesitates to support a general 

 movement to provide a national memorial, 

 though he agrees that a memorial tablet in 

 the Abbey would appropriately commemorate 

 Spencer's work. In the absence of this form 

 of recognition, it would seem that the best 

 way for admirers of the philosopher to show 

 their appreciation of his work would be to 

 establish a lectureship or scholarship in so- 

 ciology, natural science, or principles of educa- 

 tion, to issue, as suggested by Dr. A. R. Wal- 



lace, a cheap edition of his works, or in some 

 other manner to further the objects to which 

 he devoted his life. A movement with an end 

 of this kind in view might be made of inter- 

 national interest, and would doubtless receive 

 liberal support. 



AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE 

 STATES AND THE TERRITORIES. 



The question, ' What constitutes the area 

 of the United States ? ' is discussed in Bulletin 

 302 of the United States Geological Survey, 

 of which Mr. Henry Gannett is the author. 

 Jurisdiction extends to a line three nautical 

 miles from the shore, but this strip of sea can 

 not properly be regarded as a part of the 

 country. Supposing our country to be re- 

 stricted to the sea and lake coast, there re- 

 mains a question regarding the bays and estu- 

 aries. To what extent should the coast line 

 be followed strictly, and where should we be- 

 gin to jump across the indentations made by 

 the sea? In this matter one can only follow 

 his own judgment, making in each case as 

 natural a decision as possible, as no definite 

 criterion can be established. The absence of 

 an absolute standard is in large measure the 

 cause of the discrepancy between- the tables 

 of the Census Office, made in 1881, and those 

 of the General Land Office, prepared in 1899, 

 both of which show the areas of the United 

 States and of the several states and territories. 



The measurements and computations upon 

 which these tables were based were made with 

 great care and thoroughness in each case, and 

 the results probably represented the areas as 

 closely as they could be determined from the 

 maps and charts in existence at both times. 

 Most of the differences in these two sets of 

 tables are trifling, amounting to only a few 

 square miles or a small fraction of one per 

 cent., being well within the limits of error of 

 the planimeter and of the maps used. Some 

 of them, however, are considerable, and a few 

 are explained by the fact that more recent 

 maps, which changed the position of boun- 

 daries between states, had been used by the 

 Land Office, and its measurement was, there- 

 fore, more nearly correct. Other discrepan- 



