August 27, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



269 



groups. In Tables II. and III. this variety of 

 effort is shown. Incidental effort in a neigh- 

 boring field is not indicated, only more serious 

 effort in teaching or research. Table II. rep- 

 resents laboratory effort only, while Table 

 III. shows the activities of those persons en- 

 gaged in the several fields of clinical medicine. 

 Thus it is seen that of the 179 individuals 

 in the 1903 list 118 or 65 per cent, were inter- 

 ested in more than one field of activity; while 

 in the 1910 list only 49 per cent, were working 

 in more than one field. These figures would 

 appear to indicate, among the latter group, a 

 tendency to specialize. 



NATIVITY 



Table IV.^ shows distribution according to 

 birth. For the purpose of condensing the 

 table no state is given alone unless it is repre- 

 sented by more than two names; states with 

 one or two names are grouped under the words 

 " other states " appearing in each division. 



in 1910; Minnesota 1, in 1903; Colorado and 

 California each 1 in 1903, and California 1 in 

 1910. 



If this table is contrasted with a similar 

 table by Cattell in which is analyzed the larger 

 group of one thousand scientists, the follow- 

 ing points of similarity or difference appear: 



1. Of the larger group (1,000) 126 were 

 foreign born; of the medical group (238), 37; 

 12.6 per cent, as compared to 15.5 per cent. 

 Of the 37 foreign born, 14 were natives of 

 Canada, and if these are set in a separate 

 group, the members of the medical group of 

 non-American birth are but 9.6 per cent. 

 Another point is of interest in this connection : 

 In our 1903 list, 13 medical men are shown to 

 be of Canadian birth, while Cattell's corres- 

 ponding list shows for the entire 1,000, a total 

 of 34 of Canadian birth. This shows that 

 more than one third of the individuals of 

 Canadian birth have achieved their prom- 



For the sake of record these may be given as 

 follows : Vermont 1 (1903) ; New Hampshire 

 1 (1910); District of Columbia 1 (1903); 

 ISTorth and South Carolina each 2 in 1903; 

 Tennessee 2, Alabama and Mississippi each 1 



5 In this and all other tables in which totals do 

 not agree with those of Table I., it is to be under- 

 stood that the records, as given in "American 

 Men of Science," were, in some instances, incom- 

 plete or difficult of interpretation. 



6 Birth place of one individual in 1908 list not 

 given. 



inenee through the medical sciences. As far 

 as any one influence is concerned in this it 

 would appear to be connected with the Univer- 

 sity of Toronto. Of the 13 individuals of the 

 medical group, resident in the United States 

 in 1903, eight were graduates in arts or medi- 

 cine of this university. No other Canadian 

 institution is represented by more than one 

 individual. On the other hand, as five of the 

 Canadians went to Hopkins for post-graduate 

 study, this institution would appear to be a 

 secondary important factor in that it drew the 



