August 27, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



267 



of 1903 and 1910 is shown as a distinct part 

 of one table. When, however, this would en- 

 tail a large awkward table, and when there is 

 no particular advantage to be gained, a com- 

 posite table is given. Occasionally where dif- 

 ferences are striking the two lists are pre- 

 sented in separate tables. 



In interpreting these tables it should be 

 borne in mind that although with each new 

 edition Cattell prepares a new list of one 

 thousand leading scientists, the names starred 

 in an earlier list are still retained unless 

 dropped by reason of death or removal to a 

 foreign country. Thus in the 1910 edition of 

 " American Men of Science " more than a 

 thousand names are starred. The exact num- 

 ber over a thousand is the difference between 

 the new names added and those dropped on ac- 

 count of death or departure from the United 

 States. Therefore, my list of 59 names, taken 

 from the second edition, includes names not 

 starred in the 1906 edition and, naturally, none 

 of the names which at that time were starred, 

 with one exception, a person who changed from 

 work in general biology to distinctly medical 

 research. The losses of starred names in 1910, 

 as compared with 1906, were six in number: 

 by death, Wilbur Olin Atwater (physiological 

 chemistry) ; James Carroll (bacteriology and 

 pathology) ; Gaylord Parsons Clark (physiol- 

 ogy), and John Bruce MacCallum (anatomy 

 and physiology) ; by removal from the country, 

 Arthur Eobertson Cushny (pharmacology), 

 and William Osier (medicine). (The name 

 of Ira van Giesen appears in the first edition 

 but not in the second and is not noted among 

 deaths or removals.) 



It should also be explained that although 

 the directory includes many Canadian scien- 

 tists, these are not considered by Cattell in 

 making up the lists of 1,000 leading men. 



A classification, according to principal field 

 of activity, is shown in Table I. 



Despite the attention given to classification, 

 as described above, certain liberties have been 

 taken with this table; under pathology (com- 

 parative) has been included an individual 

 classified by Cattell as a medical zoologist; 

 under bacteriology are included three individ- 



TABLE I 



Classification According to Principal Field of 

 Effort 



Anatomy . 



Physiology ... 

 Pathology. ... 

 Bacteriology. . 

 Chemistry. . . . 



Pharmacology . 



Medicine .... 

 Psychiatry . . . 

 Neurology. . . 



Surgery 



Pediatrics . . . . 



Including histology, embryol- 

 ogy and comparative anat- 

 omy 



Including comparative physiol- 

 ogy 



Including comparative and ex- 

 perimental pathology 



Including protozoology and hy- 

 giene 



Inorganic, organic, physio- 

 logical pharmaceutical and 

 micro-chemistry and toxi- 

 cology 



Including materia medica, 

 therapeutics and medical 

 botany 



Refers to internal medicine . . . 



Including psychology 



Total of both lists, 238. 



uals whose chief work is in hygiene; and under 

 pharmacology are included two men who are 

 essentially medical botanists. These inclu- 

 sions are made here for the sake of shortening 

 the table; in later tables, however, due allow- 

 ance has been made so that statistics concern- 

 ing pharmacologists, for example, are not con- 

 fused by including botanists. It should also 

 be stated that under neurologists are included 

 only men working in clinical neurology or 

 neuropathology. Neurologists, in the sense of 

 anatomists studying the anatomy of the ner- 

 vous system, and not in clinical work, are in- 

 cluded under anatomists. 



The chief points of interest brought out by 

 this table are: (1) the large number of indi- 

 viduals in the older laboratory sciences — ■ 

 anatomy, physiology and chemistry — as com- 

 pared with the number in those, pathology, 

 bacteriology and pharmacology, of more recent 

 development, and (2) the relatively small 

 number of clinicians who have attained scien- 

 tific distinction. These differences hold in 

 both lists. 



