Mat 27, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



819 



among a certain class of biologists, and, in 

 consequence, has delayed progress in biology 

 for a considerable time. Weismann alone is 

 responsible for tbe discredit into which the 

 Lamarck-Darwinian view of the causes of 

 variation has fallen: the latter has become 

 unfashionable and " not up to date." Thus 

 biologists were and are to a certain extent 

 afraid of looking at evolutionary questions 

 under the assumption that the " inheritance 

 of acquired characters " might possibly be 

 correct, and failed to do, what was most 

 needed, to prove or disprove this view by the 

 way of experiment. Fortunately, at the pres- 

 ent time, conditions seem to improve: obser- 

 vations and experiments are being made which 

 have a distinct bearing upon this question, 

 and we may say that unexpected results are 

 forthcoming which tend to show that the 

 Lamarckian principle, which is also Darwin's 

 view of the origin of transmissible variations, 

 should be reckoned with. We only hope that 

 this spirit of emancipation from a scientific 

 dogma may prosper and flourish, and true 

 progress will be assured. 



A. E. Ortmann 

 Caeneqie Museum, 



PlTTSBtTEGH, PA. 



NOTE ON THE MARKING SYSTEM IN THE ASTRO- 

 NOMICAL COURSE AT COLUMBIA 

 COLLEGE, 1909-10 



After the first half year's work in the in- 

 troductory astronomical course at Columbia 

 had been finished, a test was made to ascertain 

 the precision with which marks were as- 

 signed after the mid-year written examina- 

 tion. The answer books as handed in by the 

 students were arranged in alphabetical order 

 and each fifth book selected. In this way 

 eleven answer books were obtained, represent- 

 ative of the class as a whole and chosen en- 

 .tirely without bias. 



These eleven books were then marked by the 

 following six professors of astronomy: Pro- 

 fessor John M. Poor, of Dartmouth; Pro- 

 fessor F. E. Moulton, of Chicago; Professor 

 Wm. Beebe, of Yale; Professor O. M. Leland, 

 of Cornell; Professor S. A. Mitchell, of Co- 



lumbia; Professor Harold Jacoby, of Co- 

 lumbia. 



No professor was permitted to see the 

 marks assigned by the others; all were in- 

 structed to let the mark 10 represent that de- 

 gree of proficiency which may be expected 

 reasonably from a competent student who 

 works hard; and 6 was to be considered a 

 pass mark. No attention was to be paid to 

 neatness, spelling, etc.; the marks were to be 

 assigned upon astronomical proficiency only. 

 The following table contains the results, the 

 names of the professors being replaced by let- 

 ters of the alphabet so as not to make public 

 which professors gave the highest or the low- 

 est marks. 



The professor in the column D, whose aver- 

 age mark is 6.Y, appears to have taken 5 in- 

 stead of 6 as his pass mark; he explained in 

 a letter that only one of the students should 

 fail to pass in his opinion, although he as- 

 signed three marks under 6. 



Making due allowance for this circumstance 

 in the case of professor D, there is a very 

 close accord in the marks given by the vari- 

 ous professors. It would appear that the stu- 

 dents have attained a very high average in 

 their work, and that the marking system is 

 more precise than some of its critics would 

 have us believe. Possibly this may be due to 

 the fact that astronomy is an exact science. 



For the information of other teachers, the 

 examination paper is appended. 



Harold Jacoby 

 Columbia Univeesitt, 

 April, 1910 



