Decembeb G, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



801 



for meeting- our Dutch, hosts and the visiting 

 delegates from other countries. 



The physiological congress was composed of 

 teachers of physiology and of other members 

 of national physiological societies, of whom 

 there were about 300 in attendance. Germany 

 supplied less than one third of the members, 

 and sixteen other countries were represented 

 by over 200. The number of' papers on the 

 program was about 200. Over half of these 

 were, or included, demonstrations, experiments 

 or lantern views. There were three sections 

 with seven or eight sittings each. 



Any one interested in one or more of the 

 subjects — neurology, psychiatry, psychology, 

 care of the insane — could be registered as a 

 m.ember of the Amsterdam congress, and the 

 mimher of members was correspondingly large, 

 800. The number of papers was small, 86, 

 if the special papers on asylum management 

 be excluded; with the latter there were 121. 

 The scientific papers were divided as follows: 

 6 in three general sessions; 17 general discus- 

 sions and 38 other papers in the section of 

 neurology and psychiatry; seven general dis- 

 cussions and eighteen other papers in the sec- 

 tion of psychology and psychophysics. Each 

 section held five sessions. 



In both congresses the projection lantern 

 was extensively used for the illustration of 

 results. At the physiological congress there 

 were also many demonstrations on animals 

 which gave to the congress a unique character. 

 Short demonstrations were usually given as 

 parts of the papers that could be illustrated by 

 experiment, and one might see not only the 

 apparatus, but also the obtaining of results by 

 the men who were most familiar with the 

 method. The plan just mentioned might be 

 followed to the advantage of the members in 

 some of our national societies, although it has 

 the slight drawback that it entails considerable 

 extra work on the members of the department 

 where the meetings are held. At the physi- 

 ological congress microscopic exhibits were 

 also on view during the sessions. It was pos- 

 sible, therefore, to examine the stained sec- 

 tions at leisure, with more profit than from a 

 single brief project 'on on the screen, and it 

 gave the opportunity of discussing methods 



and results with the investigator or one of his 

 assistants. This is a most efiicacious way to 

 have disputed or doubtful matters cleared up. 



An arrangement at the physiological con- 

 gress of considerable value for the convenience 

 of the members was the posting in each sec- 

 tion of the numbers of the papers being read 

 or discussed in the other sections. This was 

 possible because of telephone connections. 

 This enabled the members to move from room 

 to room, or rather from section to section, to 

 hear papers and discussions and to take part 

 in the discussions of the topics that were of 

 special interest to them. At our scientific 

 meetings, and especially at the convocation 

 week gatherings, this method would be exceed- 

 ingly valuable. 



At both congresses there was about an equal 

 number of social meetings, excursions, a din- 

 ner, etc. The impression formed by the writer 

 was that at the Heidelberg congress the social 

 gatherings were more formal in character, 

 though not in dress, than at Amsterdam. The 

 meetings were about the same general char- 

 acter, but in some way there did not seem to 

 be so many opportunities of meeting the for- 

 eign members as there were in Amsterdam. 

 The formation of country groups was most 

 marked in Heidelberg, probably because the 

 social side usually included sitting at table, 

 while at the congress of psychiatry the forma- 

 tion of such groups was the exception. The 

 different occupations of the members of the 

 two congresses had probably much to do with 

 the social character of the meetings, for the 

 neurologists and psychiatrists must have not 

 only an interest in things (diseases and cases), 

 but also in people, whereas physiologists are 

 occupied with problems dealing little with so- 

 cial matters. The writer would not have the 

 impression left that each congress failed in 

 certain respects toward the visiting members, 

 but there is solely the matter of emphasizing 

 more or less certain aspects of the functions 

 of scientific congresses. At both the mem- 

 bers were hospitably and even royally wel- 

 comed, at both the scientific papers were equal 

 to the best. It is not intended as a reflection 

 on the committee in either place to say that 

 the scientific side at Heidelberg and the social 



