58 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XII. No. 289. 



For the journals which do not ema- 

 nate from learned bodies, the problem is a 

 simpler one. We already have numerous 

 examples of a primary differentiation into 

 popular and technical journals. The for- 

 mer can hardly fail to be, for the most part, 

 of miscellaneous contents, because they are 

 intended to keep all persons interested in 

 science at large informed on the advances 

 which are being made in its several depart- 

 ments. Familiar illustrations of successful 

 journals of this kind are Die Natur, the Na- 

 turwissenschaftliche Rundschau, Nature, Science 

 Gossip, Science, the American Naturalist 

 and the Popular Science Monthly, not to 

 mention others of a list which might 

 be greatly extended. Even among these, 

 however, as the examples named may serve 

 to show, there is a considerable specializa- 

 tion on subject lines, and the present issu- 

 ance of Science and the Popiular Science 

 Monthly under one editorial management 

 may be taken as representative of a process 

 of evolution in active progress, by which 

 even the less technical journals are differ- 

 entiating into classes adapted to readers en- 

 gaged in active scientific work and persons 

 having an interest in but not directly en- 

 gaged with such work. 



One further differentiation that is becom- 

 ing a pressing necessity is that which shall 

 result in a considerable improvement in the 

 specialist's means of keeping himself in- 

 formed on what has been done in his own 

 specialty. I do not refer to the popular or 

 general presentation of the more striking 

 results of current activity which can be ob- 

 tained from the general journals or those 

 devoted to each particular branch of science, 

 but to something which of necessity must 

 be limited to that branch and which must 

 be complete. Many of the proceedings of 

 societies and of the journals publish very 

 helpful bibliographies at short intervals, 

 and the Botanisches Centralblatt is in large 

 part devoted to this purpose, while the Jahr- 



esbericht, taking more time than is possible 

 for a current periodical, summarizes and 

 indexes with much greater fullness current 

 botanical literature. Unfortunately, the 

 Jahresberieht is so greatly delayed that a 

 period of several years elapses before its 

 pages afford information on any given piece 

 of work, and it is difiScult to see how this 

 can be otherwise, in view of the care which 

 is expended in the tabulation and co-ordi- 

 nation of its contents; but without this 

 tabulation and co-ordination, it does not 

 seem to be impossible to secure a very 

 prompt synopsis of all that is issued in bo- 

 tanical literature. The machinery for doing 

 this is already organized in the bureau of 

 the Centralblatt, and it is diflScult to see 

 why all that is needed cannot be supplied 

 through this channel, if the publishers can 

 be convinced that the botanical public would 

 much rather subscribe for a bibliographic 

 journal, in which all abstracts are of short 

 length and synoptic character, than for one 

 in which many abstracts are entirely dis- 

 proportionate in length to the importance 

 of the papers they refer to, to the exclusion 

 of others, while the introduction of original 

 matter forces into a supplementary journal 

 no small part of the reviews that are given. 

 Professor Farlow has very well discussed 

 this subject in a recent number of one of the 

 botanical periodicals, and it is hoped that the 

 action initiated at the Naturalists' meeting 

 last winter, which is likely to be brought 

 up by a committee report before this Sec- 

 tion, may here find important support, so 

 that either a separation may be secured, 

 of the Centralblatt and its Beihefte into two 

 journals capable of being subscribed for 

 separately and permitting the desired com- 

 pleteness of bibliography, or other practi- 

 cable means evolved for attaining this end. 

 Some years ago, the members of this As- 

 sociation listened with no little interest to 

 Dr. Herbert Haviland Field's explanation 

 of the purposes of his then proposed Con- 



