926 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXI. No. 807 



Such articles as those by Bowman on the 

 Bolivian Andes- are altogether exceptional 

 in the clearness and fulness of their ex- 

 planatory treatment. There is very seldom 

 any indication that explorers have had in 

 mind any well-matured plan or standard, 

 in view of which a mountain range or any 

 other form that they come upon should be 

 treated. Geographical essays seldom give 

 us reason for thinking that their authors 

 have had any thorough training in the 

 analysis or the description of land forms; 

 or for thinking that they are aware of the 

 systematic association of parts that is so 

 generally characteristic of the elements of 

 a landscape, or of the reasonable origin 

 of the associated parts by the action of 

 ordinary processes. There is not even any 

 clear indication that the observers are 

 consciously experimenting with any defi- 

 nite method for the better presentation of 

 the facts that they have seen. The ran- 

 dom accounts of item after item are 

 usually arranged in indiscriminate order, 

 as if any accidental manner of presenta- 

 tion were all sufficient. This is truly one 

 of the most disappointing features of the 

 present status of geography. The very 

 sources from which we ought to expect 

 the best materisil — namely, original narra- 

 tives in books of travel, and essays in the 

 journals of the great geographical socie- 

 ties—give us records of the kind just 

 cited, in which so important a part of our 

 subject as land forms is, as a rule, treated 

 in an utterly unscientific manner. 



The prevailing absence of scientific 

 method for the treatment of land forms 

 may be, on the one hand, taken as a dis- 

 couragement by those who believe that a 

 systematic method would be helpful; for 

 if disorderly, unscientific methods prevail 

 at so late a time as the present, it must be, 



- American Journal of Science, XXVIII., 1909, 

 197-217, 375-402. 



one may be tempted to say, because no 

 other can be invented. But, on the other 

 hand, the absence of method may be re- 

 garded as an encouragement, because it 

 shows that the field is practically clear for 

 the introduction of any method that will 

 generally commend itself to practical 

 geographers. The latter point of view is 

 to be preferred. Let me, therefore, con- 

 fidently urge upon all our members who 

 are interested in this aspect of geograph- 

 ical progress to give a share of their time 

 to the invention and development of a 

 thorough-going method for the description 

 of land forms, a method that may find gen- 

 eral acceptance through being generally 

 applicable ; and to make experimental trial 

 of the method for themselves, and explain 

 it as well as exemplify it in their publica- 

 tions. 



As an earnest of my conviction of the 

 importance of this work, allow me to say 

 that I have already made some experi- 

 ments of this kind myself. You may re- 

 member that, two years ago, when we met 

 at Chicago, I had the pleasure of conduct- 

 ing a conference in which the discussion 

 centered chiefly on the possibility of de- 

 veloping and adopting a systematic method 

 for the description of the lands, and in 

 which I advocated the general use of what 

 has been called the method of "structure, 

 process and stage" for this purpose. It 

 is my desire to-day to carry the subject of 

 that conference somewhat farther; partly 

 by reviewing what was then accomplished, 

 partly by describing to you an experiment 

 in the same direction that I made in Eu- 

 rope in the summer of 1908. 



One of my objects at the Chicago con- 

 ference was to bring forward various other 

 systematic methods of treating land forms, 

 besides the one with which I was experi- 

 menting myself ; but no success was reached 

 in this direction. Several members who 



