AUGUST 6, 1897. ] 
could be arranged through the copyright, 
but in Germany the copyright had been left 
to the different states of the Empire and the 
regulations were different. In Saxony, 
which included the great publishing town 
of Leipzig, copies of books were not required 
to be furnished, and the same difficulty ex- 
isted in Switzerland. Professor Schwalbe 
thought that absolute completeness would 
probably be impossible, mentioning by the 
way that even the daily newspapers occa- 
sionally contain articles of high value 
which would have to be considered. Pro- 
fessor Mach pointed out that in Austria it 
was compulsory to register and deposit 
books, and he expressed the hope that if the 
Congress came to a successful issue the 
‘various governments would enact laws 
making the deposit of books compulsory: 
Professor Korteweg suggested that one diffi- 
culty would be to make the proper distinc- 
tion between original works and those 
which had only a pedagogical value. The 
elementary book must be omitted, yet there 
were among such books many that deserved 
a place. At all events, he thought it desi- 
rable to state the principle that pedagogical 
books on popular science should be ex- 
cluded. Professor Newcomb thought that 
the necessary omissions would not materi- 
ally detract from the value of the catalogue. 
“Naturally,” he said, ‘‘every author, if he 
knows that this is the only way of making 
his work known, will send a copy to the 
Bureau, or take some means of making the 
Bureau aware of his work.’ Professor 
Armstrong thought that there would be no 
difficulty, because the proposed catalogue 
would serve as the best possible advertise- 
ment for the books. This resolution was 
unanimously agreed to. 
The next resolution was a most impor- 
tant one, being designed to bring out the 
distinction between pure and applied 
science. As introduced it reads as follows: 
“That a contribution to science for the pur- 
SCIENCE. 
191 
poses of the catalogue be considered to 
mean a contribution to any of the following 
sciences : mathematics, astronomy, physics, 
chemistry, geology, zoology, botany, physi- 
ology and anthropology, to the exclusion 
of what are sometimes called the applied 
sciences, the limits of the several sciences 
to be determined hereafter.’”” Professor 
Schwalbe raised the question whether 
geography was to be considered one of the 
natural sciences. In Germany, he said, it 
was regarded not simply as an auxiliary to 
natural science, but as a science which of 
itself had relations to the whole series of 
natural phenomena, being related to an- 
thropology and astronomy as well as to 
land surveys. He thought that geography 
was aS much a science as chemistry or 
physics, and that even anthropology be- 
longed to geography, except that portion or 
it which was related to anatomy. He was 
himself of the opinion that anthropology 
and geography had best be treated to- 
gether. Professor Heller proposed, as a 
title, the ‘physics of the earth,’ stating 
that geography, meteorology and all 
sciences which had to do with the knowl- 
edge of the earth could be included under 
this title, excepting physics and astronomy. 
Mineralogy, he thought, could be treated as a 
separate science, while geography appeared 
to be only a portion of the science of the 
physics of the earth. Professor Christiansen, 
of Denmark, thought that it would be very 
difficult to define the different sciences, and 
that it would be best to take simply mathe- 
matics, astronomy, chemistry and botany. 
Professor Armstrong called attention to the 
fact that the question under discussion 
really was whether applied science was to 
be included. Professor Forel suggested 
that the phrase be simply ‘physical and nat- 
ural sciences, mathematics,’ etc., which 
was agreed to by Professor Mobius, who re- 
marked that historical studies would have 
to be omitted. Dr. Billings suggested 
