Febeuaey 5, 1897.] 



SCIENCE. 



207 



29 and 30, 1896, under the presidency of 

 Professor Gr. S. Fullerton, of the University 

 of Pennsylvania. There vrere three formal 

 sessions of the Association, one on the 

 morning of the 29th, held at the Harvard 

 Medical School, and two sessions on the 30th, 

 held at the Peabody Museum of Archae- 

 ology in Cambridge. The members of 

 the Association very generally attended the 

 discussion on ' The Inheritance of Acquired 

 Characteristics ' before the American N'a- 

 turalists on the afternoon of the 29th, 

 psychology being represented in the discus- 

 sion by Professor James, of Harvard. To- 

 gether with the other affiliated societies, the 

 Psychologists were present at Mr. Agassiz's 

 lecture and reception on Tuesday evening, 

 at the luncheon given by the President and 

 Fellows of Harvard College on Wednesday, 

 and at the formal dinner of the societies at 

 the Hotel Brunswick in Boston, on Wednes- 

 day evening. There were forty-five mem- 

 bers in attendance, the largest meeting 

 since 'the organization of the Association. 

 Owing to the number of distinctly philo- 

 sophical papers, one session of the Associa- 

 tion was given up to papers of that char- 

 acter. The scientific program was as fol- 

 lows : 



1. The Physiology of Sensation. By E. A. Sin- 

 ger, of the University of Pennsylvania. 

 States the fundamental question as : 

 What would be an ideally complete phys- 

 iology of sensation? The method employed 

 in answering the question would establish 

 an analogy between what has been regarded 

 as progress in the past and what should be 

 sought by a progressive psychology of the 

 future. The result of such an analogy is 

 stated in the following form : Wherever we 

 know anything about the psychology of 

 sensation we find that the correlate of a 

 mental difference is a structural physio- 

 logical difference. Where we are yet in 

 ignorance as to the physiological counter- 



part of a mental difference we should as- 

 sume it to be a difference in structure rather 

 than a difference in functioning of the 

 same structure. This view is to be con- 

 trasted with such opinions as would regard 

 the physiological counterpart of intensity 

 as the greater or less activity of the same 

 nervous structure ; feeling tone as the 

 greater or less disintegration, or as depend- 

 ent upon conditions of greater or less nutri- 

 tion of the same structure, etc. Some at- 

 tempt is made, rather by way of illustration 

 than as framing a completely tenable hy- 

 pothesis, to suggest a physiology of these 

 so-called properties of sensation that would 

 relate them to quality of sensation. Thus 

 the physiological basis of intensity differ- 

 ences is sought in part in the different end 

 organs affected in greater or less reaction 

 to a stimulus ; in part also in special ap- 

 paratus suggested by the allied nature of 

 intensity and saturation in color sensations. 

 Feeling tone is distinguished from pleasure 

 and pain ; the physiology of the former be- 

 ing related to that of the emotion, the phys- 

 iology of the latter to that of the special 

 senses. Local sign presents the inverse 

 problem as to how sensations conditioned 

 by confessedly different nervous structures 

 should come to be classed together. The 

 answer suggested is that the classing to- 

 gether of locally different sensations and 

 qualitatively similar is conditioned by the 

 formal likeness of the end organs affected, 

 they determining a likeness in the adequate 

 stimuli and in the general way of behaving 

 of the sensation. Recognized likeness and 

 difference of sensations are found to involve 

 psycho-physical reflection. 



2. Intensity of Sensation. By James E. 



Lough, of Harvard University. 



Sensations forming an intensity series 

 have this characteristic which distinguishes 

 them from a qualitative series, namely, that 

 the Intensity series goes towards or from 



