248 Editorial Comment. 
division is chiefly in the laboratory or office — as in researches 
in palaeontological collections made by others. Every worker 
becomes responsible for what he accomplishes. Even the col- 
lector stands credited in the published reports. Such seems to 
be the usage in the conduct of public investigations. 
Naturally, the same usage might be expected to prevail in- 
investigation under private auspices. But it cannot be said that 
such is the case. There is an obvious reason for the difference. 
The pecuniary costs of field-work and investigation are often 
very considerable. When the general public defray the costs, 
no individual's contribution is important; and no individual ac- 
quires any claim antecedent to or collateral with that of the ex- 
plorer or investigator. But when the expenses are defrayed by 
one individual, he acquires a lien on all the results worked out 
under his direction ; and can dispose of his rights according to 
his own pleasure. If he can get investigation done for a salary, 
that is his right; but, if he is willing also, to accord some amount 
of public credit to his paid investigator, that is under his discre- 
tion. There is good reason for his not disbursing to others all 
credits for results produced. That he has not personally pro- 
duced all of them is due simply to the fact he has yielded to others 
so much opportunity to become experts and acquire standing. 
Where investigations are carried on at the cost of a public 
museum or institution the results sustain relations analogous to 
those accruing from a jDublic survey. No individual can assert 
a prior lien on the ground of antecedent expenses. By estab- 
lished usage in public work, and by a rational courtesy, the as- 
sistant in such case is entitled to due acknowledgement, even in 
cases where previous agreement does not stipulate for it. 
Speaking now exclusively of cases in which the employ^ 
engages in paid investigation under private auspices, and with- 
out stipulation for any compensation other than the material 
salary, it appears to us that the employer might even to his own 
advantage, make such public recognition of the work of the 
employ^ as to enable him to feel that he is creating honorable 
reputation in common with similar workers on public enter- 
prises. Still, he should feel that his employer has borne great 
personal burdens, and should not expect him to cede all honor 
and reputation to those whose opportunities he has created. 
