1897.] Psychology. 173: 
Miss Mary E. Harmon reported on a series of psycho-physical meas- 
urements to which 100 normal school girls and 100 kindergarten 
pupils of both sexes were submitted. The usual questions of age, par- 
entage, etc., and anthropological measurements, were supplemented by 
tests of sound reaction, free arm movement time, ete. Among the kin- 
dergarten children, the girls were found to be much slower in the arm 
movement test than the boys, the average times being about 2150 and 
1550 respectively. 
Prof. Wesley Mills reported on personal experiences under ether. 
He described the narrowing and intensification of consciousness prior 
to evanescence, and compared it with De Quincey’s similar experiences 
under the influence of opium. 7 
Brother Chrysostom, of Manhattan College, spoke upon a “ Pre- 
liminary Study of Memory.” A set of 30 questions was distributed 
among various educational institutions ; a few have responded already, 
and these results were reported. The questions were minute and 
thorough-going ; several were devoted to different characteristics of the 
attention and its individual variations. One inquiry being as to the 
time of day in which the best work could be done, the answers were: 
found to be about evenly divided between the forenoon and late even- 
ing. 
Interesting discussion followed the separate papers, but unfortunately 
the program was so crowded at both this and the Wednesday sessions. 
that this important part of the proceedings had several times to be cut 
short. 
The meetings on Wednesday (December 30th) were held in the Pea- 
body Museum of Archzology at Cambridge. The morning session was. 
devoted largely to historical and theoretical topics. Prof. Armstrong 
reported on the growth of the study of philosophy in American col- 
leges in the past twenty-five years; he described the great progress 
everywhere since 1872 in the number of courses, hours and instructors 
in the department, the broadening and specialization of the courses, and 
the increase of special foundations and endowments. 
Two papers followed on the relation between mind and body. Prof. 
D. S. Miller summed up the evidence against the theory of psycho- 
physical parallelism, and spoke in favor of Bradley’s construction of 
the causal relation. Prof. C. S. Strong, speaking on the same topic, 
favored a form of the parallelistic theory which recognized the “ effi- 
cacy of consciousness”; it was a mistake, he argued, to believe that 
the parallelistic theory necessarily involved the reduction of conscious- 
ness to the rôle of an epiphenomenon. 
