3ilABCH 17, 1916] 



SCIENCE 



385 



encouragement of research, and is tenable for 

 one year. The financial board reports tbat 

 Sir Eustace Gurney has offered to present to 

 the university a farming estate of about 257 

 acres with a view to the encouragement of the 

 study of forestry in the university; the net 

 income in rent of the estate is about £100 per 

 annum. The general board of studies reports 

 that the council of the Eoyal Geographical 

 Society has decided to make grants of £300 

 per annum for five years to the schools of 

 geography in Oxford and Cambridge. 



The trustees of Columbia University have 

 voted to admit women to the College of Physi- 

 cians and Surgeons. 



Elmer George Peterson, A.M., Ph.D. (Cor- 

 nell), was elected president of the Utah Agri- 

 cultural College, on March 17. 



Dr. Eoswell C. McCrea, dean of the Whar- 

 ton School and professor of economics in the 

 University of Pennsylvania, has accepted a 

 professorship of economics in Columbia Uni- 

 versity. 



At the University of Cambridge Mr. H. H. 

 Brindley, of St. John's College, has been ap- 

 pointed demonstrator of biology to medical 

 students, and Mr. C. Warburton, of Christ's 

 College, demonstrator in medical entomology. 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 



"SCIENTIFIC AND APPLIED PHARMACOGNOSY" 



To THE Editor of Science: Since the pub- 

 ication of my review of Professor Henry 

 Kraemer's " Scientific and Applied Pharma- 

 cognosy," which was written at your request, 

 I have received a letter from my Philadelphia 

 colleague charging me with misrepresentation 

 and other acts of unkindness. In reply I in- 

 formed him that I was exceedingly sorry to 

 learn that I had offended him and begged him 

 to inform me where I had erred. This he has 

 done in a second letter. I should be glad to 

 have you give the readers of Science an op- 

 portunity to judge for themselves if I have 

 been guilty of misrepresentation, even though 

 quite unintentionally. 



One of my statements to which Professor 

 Kraemer makes objections is the reference to 



failure to give credit to Tschirch's " Handbuch. 

 der Pharmaeognosie " in his preface, viz. : 



One point, however, is noteworthy as a curious 

 omission. Among the works consulted, the author 

 in his preface does not even mention Tschirch, or 

 his predecessors Flueekiger and Hanbury. 



The part of the preface to which I had refer- 

 ence reads as follows : 



In the preparation of a book like the present it 

 is self-evident that it is based upon the work of 

 the great masters who have developed pharmacog- 

 nosy from its inception. Among the works con- 

 sulted by the author, and of which special mention 

 should be made, are the following: . . . 

 Here follow a number of names and titles, 

 those of the three scientists mentioned above 

 being conspicuous by their absence. 



Justifying this omission. Professor Kraemer 

 points out in his letter that 



On p. 1, I give Flueekiger 's definition of phar- 

 macognosy, and refer to my article in the footnote 

 in which I have credited both Flueekiger and 

 Tschirch with the great work that they have don°. 

 In this article I say: 



Just now Tschirch 's monumental work, ' ' Hand- 

 buch der Pharmakognosie, ' ' is about being com- 

 pleted and excels anything that has heretofore been 

 published not only in pharmacognosy, but in any 

 department of pharmacy. This work, when it is 

 completed with the other agencies which have been 

 at work, will do much to establish pharmacognosy 

 as a directi science and direct attention of scien- 

 tists generally to its particular rSle. 



The above quotation, however, is not to be 

 found in the book, but is taken from a pharma- 

 ceutical journal to which reference is made in 

 the footnote referred to, viz. : 



Henry Kraemer, ' ' The Else and Development of 

 Pharmacognosy, ' ' Pharm. Era, Oct., Nov. and Dec, 

 3912. In this article there occurs citation of the 

 important literature of the subject. 



JSTo doubt, as reviewer I should have traced 

 this footnote attached to the definition of the 

 word pharmacognosy and have plodded through 

 three numbers of the Pharmaceutical Era in 

 order to ascertain that Professor Kraemer had 

 some time and somewhere expressed his appre- 

 ciation of both Elueckiger and Tschirch. But 

 whether Professor Kraemer appreciated the 



1 Presumably should read an exact science. 



