35* 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XXII. No. 569 



make experiments. But in order to carry out this plan, 

 the experiments to be made by him should be connect- 

 ed with the coiirse of instruction and should be definite- 

 ly related to the experiments given on the instructor's 

 table. Indeed, the relation should be so close that a 

 knowledge given by the instructor's experiments would 

 be in large measure a guide to the performance of the 

 student's experiments and that without it the successful 

 performance of the practical work by the student would 

 be beyond his power. This insures the closest atten- 

 tion and care on the part of the student to get the pro- 

 fessor's instructions ; it trains the mind to correct obser- 

 vation, concentration of energies and carefulness in 

 drawing conclusions. 



In the beginning of a course in general chemistry and 

 for two or three months, one hour of laboratory work 

 by the student to four hours of such instruction by the 

 professor, as I have outlined, will be a good division of 

 time. As the student's knowledge of the subject in- 

 creases and his manual dexterity in handling apparatus 

 improves, his working hours should increase. This mode 

 of instruction proceeds on the rational assumption that 

 the pupil needs to be instructed ; it will furnish him the 

 largest amount of reliable, systematic, classified knowl- 

 edge that is attainable in a given time and give him the 

 best foundation for extended scientific study. 



Other special advantages of this" mode of study will 

 appear by comparison. 



Many excellent chemists make laboratory experi- 

 ments by the student the starting point and the centre 

 of all instruction. Their idea seems to be to make the 

 dtudent do his own work, draw his own conclusions and 

 thus instruct himself: the instructor, according to this 

 method, gives him the fewest practicable hints and 

 directions. In furtherance of this plan of instruction 

 many "laboratory manuals" have been written which 

 contain a great profusion of experiments: in many 

 cases these, are poorly arranged. In the preface to one 

 of these "manuals," now open before me, I find these 

 words: "The teacher should be but the guide that 

 points out the right path, calling attention to the by- 

 paths of error." This plainly implies that if only the 

 direction be pointed out, the student can make the trip. 

 This plan puts the student forward to work for unknown 

 truth ; it holds out to him the idea that in some sort he 

 is an investigator, when in reality at first his work 

 should be to learn what others have brought to light 

 and how they have done it. 



The objections to making the laboratory work of the 

 student in the beginning the leading and independent 

 method of learning chemistry are numerous and strong: 



1. It involves an unnecessary consumption of time. 



2. It assumes that the student can do properly what, in 

 the very nature of the case, is well-nigh impossible. A 

 certain amount of knowledge is necessary to the ac- 

 quisition of other knowledge under the best conditions: 

 there is hardly any fact more palpably true than this. 



A student of algebra could hardly be expected to 

 solve problems of any degree until he had the prelim- 

 inary operations and rules that had been established by 

 the patient work of strong, industrious minds. A trav- 

 eller, ignorant of the topography and history of Rome, 

 her archaeology, her classic and Christian art, would 

 not be profited by a visit to the famous city: he 

 would stand unmoved before the ruins, the historic 

 arches and temples and the treasures of her splendid 

 galleries. A man sees what he has eyes to see. This 

 principle applies in the study of chemistry. An un- 

 taught youth knows not what to expect, what to look 

 for in an experiment; he sees things and knows not 

 what is essential and important and what incidental and 



accessory. Many things he fails to see because he 

 knows not what to look for and how to look. This 

 brings him into a hesitating, doubting state of mind 

 which is very unfavorable to definite, strong impres- 

 sions. He does not know the significance of those ac- 

 tions which he observes, and he is unable to give them 

 scientific interpretation and impression. 



Chemistry is a great science, difficult to master: it 

 has risen upon stepping stones of errors and obstacles 

 by the continued efforts of great men. For centuries 

 minds of able and laborious investigators reached ottt 

 after the truth and battled against error. The advance 

 from the unknown to the known has been very slow. 



Glauber's "Sal Mirabile," Shahl's "Phlogiston" and 

 various other propositions and hypotheses, strenuously 

 advocated and rejected, tell us of the intensity of the 

 struggle and how the mists of uncertainty hung over 

 their work. But when Lavoisier availed himself of the 

 labors of others, patiently compared facts with facts 

 and generalized scientifically, he saw a new light, and 

 the birth of modern chemistry was announced; chaos 

 gave place to order; principles became harmonious. 



In view of all this, is it not erroneous to require a 

 student in the very outset to make and interpret experi- 

 ments as the means of getting knowledge and to proceed 

 with the most meagre knowledge to classify phe- 

 nomena? Students at first should be put in possession 

 of that knowledge which is their just inheritance from 

 the history of the past and shotild have the opportunity 

 of learning the methods of experimentation adopted by 

 the builders of the science, and from this study of facts 

 and principles and modes of manipulation to acquire 

 the power of orderly thinking and get the key to higher 

 and greater treasures. 



When one wishes to enter upon research he carefully 

 inquires what has been done already; he gets the 

 bibliography, and learns the methods of investigation 

 in that line that have been most fruitful of results: not 

 until he has come to this point is he ready to enter upon 

 the work which he proposes. 



The object of work in the laboratory by the student 

 in the beginning is to learn to use apparatus: his in- 

 struction must come mainly from the skillful teacher: 

 the teacher is not merely "a guide" but a positive 

 power in instruction, an intellectual quickener. The 

 work of a student left to himself in the laboratory 

 profits but little. 



ORIGIN OF THE HYDROCARBONS. 



BY MARCUS E. JONES, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH. 



A RECENT review of the paper of Dr. Engler on this 

 subject in Science is an interesting one, as it is in the 

 line with my own observations on that subject in Utah. 

 The time-worn theory of the origin of our Utah hydro- 

 carbons from coal has been repeated by several persons 

 in Science during the past year, but unfortunately there 

 is hardly a particle of evidence of such origin. I do not 

 know of a single deposit near our coal beds in Utah, 

 with perhaps the exception of one bed of impure asphalt, 

 which seems to be close to the Dakota group, but may 

 have come down from above, as it is not certainly intei - 

 stratified with the Cretaceous beds. V\ ith this excep- 

 tion I do not know of any deposits of our hydrocarbons 

 that are earlier than the iVIiocene Tertiary. There are 

 some places where it is not possible to certainly tell 

 whether some sandstones are Eocene or Miocene where 

 asphalt has collected from adjacent beds of shale or 

 clay. In using the word "near" it is used in a geologi- 

 cal sense, i. e., stratigraphically near. There are some 

 hydrocarbon beds which are within perhaps one-half a 



