838 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. IV. No. 101. 



The Board of University Regents in Califor- 

 nia have decided to locate in San Francisco the 

 trade school for boys endow^ed by the late J. C. 

 Wilmerding with $400,000. 



Three new instructors have been appointed 

 at the University of Vermont: Dr. David 

 Irons in Philosophy, Dr. W. G. Bullard in 

 Mathematics and Mr. F. S. English in Civil 

 Engineering. 



Lord Eeay has been proposed for election as 

 President of University College, London, in the 

 room of the late Sir John Erichsen. 



The Austrian government proposes to admit 

 women after next year to all faculties of the 

 Universities except theology. 



Aberdeen University will add a wing for 

 science at a cost of about $50,000. The gov- 

 ernment has refused a grant for the purpose, 

 but it appears that the city will pay the cost in 

 return for land given by the University Court. 



The following appointments are taken from 

 th.e naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau: Dr.Knove- 

 nagel, of the University of Heidelberg, has been 

 made associate professor of chemistry ; Dr. 

 Wladislaw Rothert, associate professor of bot- 

 any in the University of Kasan ; Dr. Seitaro 

 Goto, professor of botany in the First High 

 School at Tokyo, Japan ; Dr. Kepinsky, asso- 

 ciate professor of mathematics at the Univer- 

 sity of Krakau ; Dr. Dalwigk has been recog- 

 nized as docent in mathematics in the Univer- 

 sity of Marburg, and Dr. Beer as docent in com- 

 parative physiology in the University at Vienna. 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 

 THE DATE OF PUBLICATION. 



In Science for November 20 (N. S., Vol. 

 IV., No. 99, pp. 760, 761) Prof. E. D. Cope has 

 appeared in defense of the resolution adopted 

 by the Zoological Section of the American As- 

 sociation for the Advancement of Science, criti- 

 cised by me in the issue of Science for Novem- 

 ber 6th (N. S., Vol. IV., No. 97, pp. 691-693). 

 I am glad to see that in this reply Prof. Cope 

 has clearly defined the issue. It is comprised 

 in the following statement: " The test of publi- 

 cation is according to Dr. Allen that it be offered 

 to the public. I agree with this, but hold that 



the only determinable test of date of offering to 

 the public is the date of printing. The presump- 

 tion is that as soon as a book is printed and 

 bound it is offered to the public. That is the 

 object of printing books." 



It is gratifying to find that Prof. Cope agrees 

 that the test of publication is the offering of a 

 work to the public. As he says, in the case 

 of books issued for sale, it does not matter 

 whether or not any copies are sold, the book is 

 published when it is offered for sale. 



On the other hand, his contention that the 

 "date of offering to the public is the date of 

 printing" is an amazing misconception of what 

 constitutes publication. Yet he concedes that, 

 "in case of the detention of a book by the 

 government subsequent to the printing the 

 question of the coincidence of the date of print- 

 ing and of ' offer to the public ' will depend on 

 whether copies of the book can be had on de- 

 mand or not. If the book can be had it is 

 ' offered to the public' If it cannot be had it is 

 not offered to the public." In this statement 

 Prof. Cope, in trying to obscure the issue, fairly 

 begs the question, and implies a condition of 

 things that does not exist, as no one probably 

 knows better than himself. 



To speak in general, and in relation to other 

 points raised by Prof. Cope, he says : ' ' The 

 date of printing, or alleged printing, of the last 

 part of a book, the title page, has always been 

 regarded as the date of publication. * * * We 

 are accustomed to refer to the title page, or 

 last page, to ascertain this date, for further 

 than this we cannot go." This is quite true 

 when there is not palpable evidence of misda- 

 ting, particularly of antedating. Hence the rule 

 generally adopted by scientific bodies, as stated 

 in my former paper, " to the effect that the 

 ostensible date, as that given on the title page 

 of a book or pamphlet, or at the bottom of the 

 signatures, shall be taken as the correct date^ 

 unless known to he erroneous. ' ' This rule is not 

 only approved by Prof. Cope, but he strangely 

 claims that it is in essential accord with the 

 resolution of the Zoological Section of the 

 American Association for the Advancement of 

 Science, which, as he, himself, states it, ' recom- 

 mended that the date of printing be regarded as 

 the date of publication.' 



