December 22, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



875 



tious and conclusions previously recorded by 

 me. 



The experimental evidence concerning: the 

 identity of the B. alortus isolated at the Illi- 

 nois Agricultural Experiment Station in 1909 

 has been presented in several papers,^ and, in 

 connection with the literature reviewed in the 

 same papers, seems to me to be conclusive. 

 Cultures of the organism have been furnished 

 to several laboratories in various parts of the 

 country. A culture of this bacterium was 

 requested by Professor E. G. Hastings, of the 

 department of bacteriology, Wisconsin Agri- 

 cultural Experiment Station, in March, 1911, 

 and such a culture was sent to him on April 

 .5, 1911. 



W. J. ilACN'EAL 



New York Post-Gradtjate Medical 

 School and Hospital 



the meetings of scientific societies 

 To THE Editor of Science : The reasons for 

 isolating the meetings of the American So- 

 ciety of Naturalists, with its two affiliations, 

 the Zoologists and Anatomists, from all other 

 scientific organizations meeting during the 

 Christmas recess seem to be as follows, judg- 

 ing from the chance statements of some of 

 the officers of the societies : (1) Better facili- 

 ties for delivering papers in the way of apart- 

 ments, lanterns, etc.; (2) better living accom- 

 modations; (3) better chances for the mem- 

 bers to become acquainted; (4) isolation from 

 temptations to spread the interests over a 

 wide field. If other reasons have been given, 

 I have not heard them expressed. 



Now, of these reasons, the first and second 

 do not seem to me of any validity. A good 

 lantern and comfortable meeting rooms can 

 readily be obtained at any of the centers where 

 ' MacNeal and Kerr, Journal of Infectious Sis- 

 eases, 1910, Vol. 7, pp. 469-475. MacNeal, So- 

 ciety of American Bacteriologists, Ithaca meeting, 

 1910. Abstract in Science, 1911, Vol. 33, pp. 

 548-549; Centrbl. f. Baht., I. Abt., Eef., 1911, 

 Bd. 49, pp. 390-391. Full paper in Illinois 

 Agriculturist, March, 1911, pp. 8-14. MacNeal 

 and Mumford, Illinois Agricultural Experiment 

 Station Bulletin No. 152 (1911, in press). 



the larger association meets and in regard to 

 living conditions, I am quite sure that the 

 cities where the American Association for the 

 Advancement of Science meets can oifer ac- 

 commodations equal to those demanded by 

 the most discriminating members of the 

 Naturalists, Zoologists and Anatomists. 



With regard to the third reason, I believe 

 that this too, is of minor consideration — not 

 because I do not value the social function of 

 the meetings, for I am under the impression 

 that this factor is paramount. What I mean 

 is that smokers and hotel lobbies and the 

 meetings themselves take care of this element 

 quite well and well enough. If the officers 

 and members who are solicitous in making the 

 meetings a success will present themselves at 

 the various functions rather than seek a quiet 

 corner where they may enjoy the company of 

 a chosen few of their friends to the exclusion 

 of others who would care to meet them, I am 

 quite sure that the third reason will pale into 

 insignificance. 



The fourth question seems to me to be the 

 one which is cardinal. I am afraid that it is 

 born of an indift'erence which certain mem- 

 bers have towards any work in zoology or in 

 biology in general which does not have cer- 

 tain relationships. If one will read over the 

 programs of the Zoologists and Anatomists, 

 he will find that papers upon topics of nomen- 

 clature, systematics, descriptive zoology and 

 embryology, bionomics and some other subject 

 matter are conspicuously absent from the one 

 and that invertebrate topics are excluded from 

 the other. This means that the role of these 

 two societies is not to cover the legitimate 

 field of zoology, but is limited to certain as- 

 pects; this is especially true of the Eastern 

 Branch, but less true of the Central Branch 

 of the Zoologists. 



In the case of the Naturalists, the limitation 

 of the field is more conspicuous than in the 

 other cases, for here we have an organization 

 which purports to be a nucleus around which 

 the other biological societies are supposed to 

 convene, whose field is more limited than any 

 of the others! I am quite well aware that 



