Geography in the United States. — Davis. 163 
There are at the present time between five and seven thous- 
and such persons in the United States, but in the absence of 
any standard of geographical knowledge from the requirements 
for membership, these societies cannot, I regret to say, be taken 
as evidence that there is a common bond by which experts in 
all branches of geography are held together. None of our 
geographical societies are composed solely of experts, and none 
of them are held together by purely geographical bonds. While 
we must not overlook the excellent work that our geographical 
societies have done, neither must we overlook the fact that in 
making no sufficient attempt to require geographical expert- 
ness as a condition for membership, there is a very important 
work that the societies have left undone. They have truly 
enough cultivated a general interest in subjects of a more or 
less geographical nature, but they have failed to develop geog- 
raphy as a mature science. Indeed it may be cogently main- 
tained that the absence of any standard of geographical knowl- 
edge as a condition for society membership has worked as 
seriously against the development of mature scientific geogra- 
phy as has the general abandonment of geographical teaching 
to the secondary schools. Large membership seems to be es- 
sential to the maintenance of good libraries in handsome so- 
ciety buildings, and it is certainly helpful in the collection of 
funds with which journals may be published and with which 
exploring expeditions may be equipped and sent out. I should 
regret to see the membership in a single existing geographical 
society decreased, but I regret also that there is no geographical 
society of the same rank as the American Mathematical So- 
ciety, the American Physical Society, or many others in wiiich 
number of members is secondary to expert quality of members. 
Large numbers of untrained persons are not found necessary to 
the maintenance of vigorous societies in which these other 
sciences are productively cultivated, and it is therefore reason- 
able to believe that large numbers would not be essential to the 
formation of a geographical society of high standing. Lideed, 
it can hardly be doubted that the acceptance of a low standard 
for mem])ership in our geographical societies has had much to 
do with the prevailing inditYerence regarding the development 
of a high standard for the qualification of geographical experts. 
