886 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XX. No. 521. 



discussion of general subjects affecting the 

 welfare and interests of the scientific body. 



With the growth of the scientific body the 

 experts eventually found their discussions 

 hampered by various conditions growing out 

 of non-expert membership, and special socie- 

 ties were organized. These societies have to 

 a great extent assumed the first of the func- 

 tioris enumerated above, but they ignore the 

 second. Their tendency is toward solidarity 

 of special groups of scientists (3a.) but against 

 solidarity of the general body (3&). They 

 can not perform the fourth function without 

 federation. In the reorganization now in 

 progress the association is becoming the means 

 of federation, the integrating factor; and this 

 relation may be called its fifth function. 



The special societies have found, and in the 

 main may be expected to find, the winter more 

 convenient than the summer for their prin- 

 cipal meetings. They tend to monopolize 

 convocation week, and by holding the atten- 

 tion of the body of experts interfere, at that 

 time, with the success of the sectional ses- 

 sions of the association. In view of these 

 and other considerations, it seems to me de- 

 sirable that the association hold two annual 

 meetings. At a winter meeting, held in con- 

 junction with the afiiliated societies, it should 

 function chiefly as the bond of union and the 

 conservator of common interests; its proceed- 

 ings should include general business, a presi- 

 dential address and a popular lecture, a few 

 selected papers, or a prearranged discussion 

 on a topic of general interest; and there 

 should be no division into sections. A sum- 

 mer meeting, having for a leading purpose 

 the diffusion of scientific interest, should in- 

 clude the work of sections, popular lectures 

 and excursions. 



Under such an arrangement it is not to be 

 supposed that the attendance at the two meet- 

 ings would be constituted in the same way. 

 The differentiation of work, being an adjust- 

 ment to the diversity of tastes and needs in 

 the membership, would naturally result in a 

 partial differentiation of personnel. Such a 

 separation is not on all accounts desirable, 

 but it seems to me better than the relinquish- 

 ment of either of those important functions 



of the association for which the encroaching 

 special societies fail to make provision. 



G. K. Gilbert. 

 Washington, D. C, 

 December 7, 1904. 



THE TERM ' GEOLOGY.' 



To THE Editor of Science: May I trespass 

 once more upon your valuable space to reply 

 to Dr. C. E. Eastman's note in your last num- 

 ber (Science, No. 517), in which he claims to 

 have finally proved me inaccurate in giving 

 credit to De Saussure as the first geologist 

 who used the term ' geology ' in the modern 

 acceptation of the word. 



While Dr. Eastman and I are quite agreed 

 as to the importance of more care among sci- 

 entific writers in the citation of ancient 

 authorities, there seems to be this essential 

 difference in our methods. That he is a strict 

 constructionist and clings to the very letter of 

 the law, while I consider it more important 

 to get at the true spirit of the citations, think- 

 ing thus to trace more correctly the progress 

 of human thought — a difference which the 

 present case seems to me to well illustrate. 



It will be noted that I said De Saussure 

 appears to have been the first to use the term 

 geology in writing on his science. 



In his ' Lettres Physiques et Morales sur 

 les Montagues,' published in 1778-9, De Luc, 

 to whom Von Zittel gives priority over De 

 Saussure, uses the term cosmology for the 

 science that treats of the knowledge of the 

 earth, although he says in his preface (page 

 viii) that the proper word would have been 

 geology, but that he ' could not venture to 

 adopt it because it was not a word in use.' 

 De Saussure, on the other hand, writing on 

 the Alps in 1779, employs the term geology 

 without any explanation or apology and al- 

 ludes to the geologist as if he were a very 

 well-known species of natural philosopher. 



In the extremely condensed form in which 

 I was obliged to treat my subject to bring it 

 within the limits of a presidential address, it 

 seemed inadvisable to introduce such explana- 

 tions as this, hence my use of the word ap- 

 pears, implying the possibility of another con- 

 struction of the statement. 



