194 
M. J08IAH ROBERTS. 
intended to illustrate the surgical relation of their component parts, would be cer¬ 
tainly of great practical utility. 
Among other specimens which it would be desirable to have in a museum 
would be, “ A series of embryos of some of the common animals. All embryos 
are, in some respects, more valuable than adults. A series of brains should be 
added; a dozen species would fairly illustrate the modifications of the vertebrate 
encephalon. And the truth of Prof. Wyman’s saying should be realized, • A 
skull is doubled in value by cutting it in two.’ ” (Wilder, 13.) 
As a rule all objects displayed for public instruction should be typical; a few 
“aberrant” forms, however, are desirable. 
But space will not permit me to go further into details ; I have given what I 
consider to be the indications in selecting objects for a medical museum, and it 
requires but the supervision of an intelligent director to carry them out. 
IV* How should the contents of a museum he arranged? 
The importance of arranging the contents of a museum so that it will be con¬ 
ducive to the advancement of general education and technical instruction to the 
u est possible extent is evident to all, but the final answer to this question is far 
roin being practically and satisfactorily given, and the demand for intelligent 
reform is urgent. 
In 1809, a competent naturalist, after visiting fifty of the principal museums 
ln -k u roi>e, reported on them in the following terms: “So far as his observations 
extended, he found no museum where any other purpose than a desire to produce 
a convenient and pleasing disposition of the specimens was manifest in the gen¬ 
eral plan of arrangement.” (16,138.) 
Prof. Flower states that museum specimens “should be in exactly the same 
circumstances as the books in a well arranged library, and ought to be equally 
accessible under suitable regulations.” (2, 11, 61.) 
The tendency on the part of museum managers to expose to view a chaotic 
mass of specimens, has been keenly criticized by Prof. Huxley, and at the same 
time lie has given the indications for remedying the evil: 
“What we need in a collection of natural history, is that it shoulcP be made 
as accessible and as useful as possible, on the one hand, to the general public, and 
on the other hand to the scientific workers. 
“That need is not met by constructing a sort of happy hunting-ground of 
miles of glass cases, and, under the pretense of exhibiting everything, putting the 
thing mUm am ° Unt ° f obstacle iu the way of those who wish properly to see any- 
What the public want is easy and unhindered access to such a collection as 
ley can undeistand and appreciate; and what the man of science wants is simi¬ 
lar access to the materials of science. To this end the vast mass of objects of 
natural history should be divided into two parts—one open to the public, the other 
o men of science every day. The former division should exemplify all the more 
interesting and important forms of life, the latter should contain, packed in com- 
para ive y small space, in rooms adapted for working purposes, the objects of 
purely scientific interest.” (17, XV.. 219.) 
The plan proposed by Prof. Huxley, I think, is far preferable to any other 
lat las yet been suggested. It has the advantage of enabling students of 
science to study undisturbedly and in detail, such objects as they may desire, 
