Editorial Comment. 3 1 l 
Marcou, Gesner, King. Vanuxem, Alexander, Percival, 
Brooks, Eames, and others, and have gathered some un- 
arranged data. It is to be hoped that these efforts may be 
pushed by some one to future fruition. There is no better 
place to preserve the personality and the record of the scien- 
tific labors of geologists than in a sympathetic geological 
journal. This has been (or had been) neglected in the 
United States. 
In laying down the active and responsible management 
of the journal the editors revert to the record of the past 18 
years with satisfaction. They are sure that on the whole 
the influence of the published volumes has been wholesome. 
They fill a niche in the passing history of geology in Amer- 
ica which, they trust, will be consulted with profit by the 
future student. The years 1888 to 1906 have been crowded 
with important geological research and with improvements 
in the methods of geological work, and the American Geol- 
ogist has contributed its quota to the progress that is so 
apparent- The editors wish to express their warmest 
thanks to the contributors who have co-operated with them, 
and to bespeak for the new editors the same cordial co- 
operation. N - H - w - 
The first few years the Geologist was maintained 
with financial loss to the editors. Not counting anything 
for expense of editorial management, the Geologist has 
been self-sustaining for about ten years, and for the last 
five or six years there has been a surplus of a few hundred 
dollars annually above actual expenses, the largest annual 
surplus having been $542. The sole reason for surrender- 
ing this charge is the desire on the part of "the managing 
editor, with advancing years, to find time for some other 
contemplated work- The Geologist, as a journal was 
never in as good condition as at the present time. 
