Januaky G, 1 05. J 



SCIENCE. 



35 



division correlations. Under such conditions 

 it appears likely that very steady and consist- 

 ent results will be obtained from mean square 

 contingency." 



In the calculation of contingency coefficients 

 the present writer has found that the follow- 

 ing i^rocedure saves much time and labor. 

 The value of the independent probability v„„ 

 for each compartment of the table is obtained 

 by the use of a Thacher calculating instru- 

 ment (Keuffel and Esser). With this instru- 

 ment one can read directly to four or five 

 figures the values of any expression which can 

 be put into the form ax/h, where a and h are 

 constants and a; is a variable. Since v„„ for 

 any compartment equals (n,^ - ■m^^)/N for that 

 compartment, it is evident that by taking 

 either n„ or m„ as the constant, it will only 

 be necessary to make as many settings of the 

 instrument as there are rows or columns in 

 the table. Having obtained the v„„ quanti- 

 ties, the sub-contingencies (ji,„, — v,„,) may be 

 written down directly, squared from Barlow's 

 tables, and divided by v„„ with an arithmom- 

 eter or with ZimmeiTTiann's or Crelle's multi- 

 plication tables. The remainder of the calcu- 

 lations necessary to obtain the mean square 

 contingency and the whole of the calculations 

 for the mean contingency, and their respective 

 coefficients are, of course, easily performed. 

 Proceeding in this way, the calculation of con- 

 tingency coefficients, even though several ex- 

 perimental groupings are made, has been 

 found to take but comparatively little time. 



The noteworthy features of this method of 

 contingency are found in that it, in the first 

 place, broadens and illumines the whole theory 

 of correlation, and in the second place, brings 

 within the range of biometrical investigation 

 a large series of problems to which it has 

 hitherto been impossible to apply exact meth- 

 ods. One can but feel that this memoir, like 

 so many of the others which have preceded it 

 in the series, marks a definite and funda- 

 mental step in advance in the steady progress 

 of the science of biometry. 



Raymond Pearl. 



' glucinum ' or ' beryllium.' 

 Some years ago the question of choice be- 

 tween the two names ' glucinum ' and ' beryl- 



lium ' was gone into quite carefully by Pro- 

 fessor F. W. Clarke and also by the committee 

 appointed by the American Association on 

 the Spelling and Pronunciation of Chemical 

 Terms, and the conclusion was arrived at that 

 the name ' glucinum ' should be used on the 

 ground of priority. In Science for Decem- 

 ber 9 Dr. Charles Lathrop Parsons has stated 

 his grounds for preferring the name 'beryl- 

 lium.' Dr. Parsons is, thanks to his biblio- 

 graphical work on the element in question, 

 thoroughly informed in its literature, but the 

 arguments adduced by him would seem to lead 

 to a conclusion diametrically opposed to that 

 which he has drawn. 



It was obviously the privilege of Vauquelin, 

 the discoverer of the element, or rather its 

 oxid, to name it. This he never did, but con- 

 tented himself by speaking of it at first as ' la 

 terre du Peril,' that is, the earth in beryl. At 

 the close of Vauquelin's first paper the editors 

 of the Annales added a note signed ' Kedac- 

 teur ' in which they propose the name ' glu- 

 cine.' It was of course well known that Guy- 

 ton and Fourcroy were the editors. Vauque- 

 lin's second paper in the Annales was evi- 

 dently prepared at the same time as the first, 

 or at least before the second was in print. 

 In his third paper, some weeks later, as Dr. 

 Parsons admits, Vauquelin actually adopted 

 the term ' glucine,' prefacing its use with ' on 

 a donne le nom de glucine.' The paper in the 

 Journal des Mines was apparently prepared 

 at the same time as the first two papers in the 

 Annales and before the appearance of the sug- 

 gestion of Guyton and Fourcroy, but at its 

 close occurs the note which Dr. Parsons has 

 quoted. In this he states that Guyton and 

 Fourcroy have advised him to call the new 

 earth ' glucine ' and while he evidently does 

 not think the name the best that could have 

 been chosen, he clearly acquiesces in the sug- 

 gestion of the two great authorities and says 

 ' Cette denomination sera assez significante 

 pour aide le memoire.' ■ Finally, as seen above, 

 in his third paper, he adopts the name. As 

 far as priority goes, the argument in favor of 

 ' beryllium ' would seem to be that probably 

 Vauquelin would have given the earth some 

 other name had he ventured to dissent from 



