November 23, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



661 



In ranking a man in a given science his con- 

 tributions to that science only should be con- 

 sidered. Thus, an eminent astronomer may also 

 be a mathematician, but in ranking him as a 

 mathematician only his contributions to mathe- 

 matics should be regarded. In such a case, how- 

 ever, mathematics should be given its widest in- 

 terpretation. It is more difficult to arrange the 

 order when the work can not readily be com- 

 pared, as, for example, systematic zoology and 

 morphology, but, as already stated, it is only 

 expected that the arrangement shall be approxi- 

 mate. The men should be ranked for work ac- 

 tually accomplished, that is, a man of sixty and 

 a man of forty, having done about the same 

 amount of work, should come near together, 

 though the man of forty has more promise. It 

 may be possible later to calculate a man's value 

 with allowance for age. 



In case there is noted the omission of any 

 scientific man from the list who should probably 

 have a place in the first three quarters, a slip may 

 be added in the proper place with his name and 

 address. In case there are names on the list re- 

 garding which nothing is known, the slips should 

 be placed together at the end. The slips, as ar- 

 ranged in order, should be tied together and re- 

 turned to the undersigned. 



It is not intended that the lists shall be pub- 

 lished, at all events not within ten years. No 

 individual list will be published. They will be 

 destroyed when the averages have been calculated, 

 and the arrangements will be regarded as strictly 

 confidential. 



The ten positions assigned to each man were 

 averaged, and the average deviations of the 

 jiidgnients were calculated. This gave the 

 most probable order of merit for the students 

 in each science, together with data for the 

 probable error of the position of each indi- 

 vidual. The students of the different sciences 

 were then combined in one list by interpola- 

 tion, the probable errors being adjusted ac- 

 cordingly. The list contains 1,443 names, of 

 whom the first thousand are the material used 

 in this research. 



It should be distinctly noted that the fig- 

 ures give only what they profess to give, 

 namely, the resultant opinion of ten com- 

 petent judges. They show the reputation of 

 the men among experts, but not necessarily 

 their ability or performance. Constant errors, 

 such as may arise from a man's being better 



or less known than he deserves, are not elimi- 

 nated. There is, however, no other criterion 

 of a man's work than the estimation in which 

 it is held by those most competent to judge. 

 The posthumous reputation of a great man 

 may be more correct than contemporary opin- 

 ion, but very few of those in this list of scien- 

 tific men will be given posthumous considera- 

 tion. I am somewhat sceptical as to merit 

 not represented by performance, or as to per- 

 formance unrecognized by the best contem- 

 porary judgment. There are doubtless indi- 

 vidual exceptions, but, by and large, men do 

 what they are able to do and find their proper 

 level in the estimation of their colleagues. 



In order to obtain the 10 arrangements in 

 each science, or 120 in all, it was necessary to 

 ask the assistance of 192 scientific men. 

 Twenty-three of these did not reply to my 

 letter; 16 declined to make the arrangement, 

 usually on the ground that it was not feasible; 

 23 consented, but afterwards gave it up or 

 did not send the slips in time, and 10 made 

 arrangements that could not be used, in most 

 cases because the names were arranged in 

 groups instead of being ordered serially. As 

 the arrangement resulted, those who made 

 it and those who were asked but failed were 

 distributed in the different hundreds of the 

 thousand, as follows : 



TABLE II. THE STANDING OP THOSE WHO MADE 



THE AERANGEMENTS AND OF THOSE WHO 



WERE ASKED BUT FAILED. 



Thus Y6 of those who proved to be in the 

 first hundred men of science were asked to 

 make the arrangement and 47 of them did so. 

 Only twelve of those who made the arrange- 

 ment are not in the first five hundred. In 

 anthropology, for example, there are only 

 twenty representatives in the list, of whom 

 but two would probably be in the first hundred, 

 and of the twelve sciences there are only 



