6l6 record of meetings of the 



Summary of Papers. 



Professor Monroe described an experiment in which students 

 were provided with sets of small vials filled one third full of 

 common odors — chiefly essential oils. Each set contained 

 twenty odors. Nostrils were alternately used; five seconds 

 were given for the stimulation, and one minute was allowed 

 for recording the result and resting the nostrils. After every 

 seven tests, the windows were opened and the room aired. 

 In all, 255 students were tested. The average number of 

 odors correctly named was 6.72. Four students named twelve 

 correctly; two students, eleven; and five students, ten. Two 

 of the students were able to identify but one odor each; fifteen 

 students, but two odors each; and seventeen students, but three 

 odors each. 



Wintergreen was correctly identified by 77 per cent, of the 

 students; camphor, 75 per cent.; peppermint, 75 per cent.; 

 vanilla, 74 per cent.; cloves, 65 per cent.; cinnamon, 56 per 

 cent.; spearmint, 38 per cent.; turpentine, 36 per cent.; tar, 36 

 per cent.; lemon, 30 per cent.; nutmeg, 27 per cent.; anise, 26 

 per cent.; pennyroyal, 21 per cent.; sassafras, 15 per cent.; bay 

 rum, 9 per cent. ; hemlock, 4 per cent. ; bergamot, 3 per cent. ; 

 assafcetida, 2 per cent. ; wormwood, 1 per cent. ; and lavender, 

 half of one per cent. A census 'of odor names showed that 

 the students believed themselves familiar with certain odors, 

 such as lavender, which they were unable to recognize. 



Dr. Wells's paper stated that a historical standard is nec- 

 essary for the regulation of linguistic usage, but the present 

 literary interpretation of it is open to many objections, being 

 reactionary in character and inconsistent in its admissions 

 and exclusions. Models of linguistic excellence, as deter- 

 minative of that body of elements to be considered good use, 

 are to be sought among works whose criteria of value are more 

 objective in character than is the case at present, as their value 

 can be more rapidly and more accurately determined, and 

 they are in closer touch with the actual needs of the language. 

 The introspection of the author of the average "Principles 

 of Rhetoric" should not be accepted as final in determining 



