Such are frequently improvements in surgical operations or medical treatment, which leads to increased practise. Another case is that of serums, etc., which may have been protected and put on the market. Here compensation can not be demanded, and pecuniary rewards are generally unnecessary. On the other hand, honors are often and justly bestowed for such work. C. Discoveries that involve neither gain nor loss to the investigator. This class includes most of the good and sometimes great clinical, pathologic and sanitary discoveries. Here also compensation can scarcely be demanded, and honors are already often given, but pecuniary awards should sometimes be bestowed as an act of grace when the value of a discovery greatly exceeds the emoluments of the investigator. This principle should hold even for men who are directly paid for undertaking the research, especially when such payment is (as usual) small and the discovery great. Special attention is drawn to: (1) men who have refused lucrative posts to complete researches; (2) men who have refused to protect their work for fear of limiting its application, and (3) men who have carried out investigations for governments for little or no payment, on patriotic grounds. In the public interest, the committee insists on these principles: (1) No medical discovery should be allowed to entail financial loss on him who has made it. (2) Compensation or reward should be assessed as equal to the difference between the emoluments actually received and those which a successful clinician might have received in the same time. Additional reasons for this are that few medical discoveries are patentable, and they seldom give good grounds for promotion or for administrative appointments in the public services. Whether a particular discovery shall receive large or small assessment will depend, in addition, on these considerations: (1) Width of application. For example, the work of many of the older anatomists, physiologists, and parasitologists, of Pasteur and of investigators of immunity, have affected most recent discoveries. Discoveries on widespread diseases, such as the work of Lister, Laveran or Koch, are often more important that those on more limited maladies. (2) Difficulty of the work done. The solution of a difficult problem requires more study and also more time and cost, and therefore deserves more recompense than a chance observation. (3) Immediate practical utility. A strong plea can be made for state remuneration in cases of this kind unless they come under Class B. Curiously, they never receive it, and academic recognition is also often not forthcoming. (4) Scientific importance. Discoveries not of practical utility may become so at any moment and should be included in the scheme if sound and of wide application. During the last few years, the British government has disbursed an annual grant of about $300,000, under the Medical Research Committee, for subsidizing investigations authorized by the committee and carried on by workers selected by it. This grant does not remunerate discoveries already made, but proceeds on the principle of payment for prospective benefits. SPECIAL ARTICLES A POCONO BRACHIOPOD FAUNA THE Pocono formation of the Appalachian Mississippian measures is known to contain marine fossils in places but little has been published on the subject and the information is scattered and difficult to assemble. The writer has recently found two beds of sandstone in the Pocono Series on Laurel Mountain in Tucker county, West Virginia, which contain branchiopod impressions and has assembled the following list of occurrences of fossils in strata which are considered to be of Pocono age. Since the present note is written in the field, full descriptions of these localities and complete citations to the literature are not given. POCONO FAUNAL LOCALITIES 1. At Altamont, Maryland, on the western limb of the Georges Creek-Potomac Syn cline, noted by G. C. Martin, 1903, Maryland Geological Survey, (Report on) Garrett county, pp. 91 and 92; marine invertebrate fauna noted in the Pocono but not described. 2. In the Broad Top Coal Field of Southern Pennsylvania a Pocono fauna has been collected from a black shale by Messrs. David White and G. H. Girty. They have been studied by Dr. Girty and described in manuscript. The fauna consists of only a few genera and species, only three or four species being found at any single locality. In order of abundance the forms noted were: Chonetes, Camarotachia, Rhipidomella, discinoids, and the pelecypod Cypricardinia (oral communication from Dr. Girty). 3. At the Beaverhole (ford and limestone quarries) on Cheat River in Preston county, West Virginia, 8 miles east of Morgantown, brachiopoda were found some years ago by Professor S. B. Brown in a dark shale near the base of the Pocono. A small collection consisting of a very few species of brachiopoda was obtained by the writer several years ago, but no list of the forms is at present available. 4. On Laurel Mountain, in Tucker county, West Virginia, brachiopoda have been found in two sandstone beds lying approximately 30 and 90 feet, respectively, below the top of the Pocono. The lower of the two faunal members rests upon a shale which becomes deep red in color a few feet below its top and seems to be the highest red bed at this point below. the top of the Pocono. A small assemblage of forms, which are, however, abundantly represented by individuals, was noted. The upper fauna consists of the following forms as noted in the field, given in the order of relative abundance: Chonetes, Schizophoria, Spirifer (coarseribbed), a gastropod (cf. Pleurotomaria), a pelecypod (cf. Cypricardinia or Grammysia). The lower fauna contains the following: Spirifer (fine-ribbed), abundant, and Camarotoechia. 5. On Limestone Mountain in Tucker county, West Virginia, in talus accumulation from the Pocono were found impressions of Schizophoria in sandstone. 6. In the Price (Pocono?) Sandstone of Southwestern Virginia brachiopoda have been collected from at least two localities by G. W. Stose, (oral communication), and their presence noted in Bulletin 530 of the U. S. Geological Survey, p. 251. The study of the Maryland and West Virginia collections is contemplated by the writer and he would be glad to receive through these columns or otherwise additional information concerning Pocono faunas. W. ARMSTRONG PRICE WEST VIRGINIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE SECTION F-ZOOLOGY THE Convocation Week meetings of Section F (Zoology) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science were held in conjunction with those of the American Society of Zoologists at Saint Louis, Missouri, December 29, 30 and 31, 1919. At the business meeting of the section, Professor Caswell Grave was elected secretary pro tem.; Professor George Lefevre, of the University of Missouri, was elected member of the council; Professor B. H. Ransom, of Northwestern University, was chosen member of the general committee; Professor H. B. Ward, of the University of Illinois, was elected member of the sectional committee for five years. The sectional committee nominated Professor John Sterling Kingsley, of the University of Illinois, as vice-president of the section for the ensuing year. The address of the retiring vice-president of Section F, Professor William Patten, of Dartmouth College, upon "The message of the biologist" was delivered at the annual dinner of the American Society of Zoologists at Hotel Statler, Wednesday evening, December 31, and is printed in the issue of SCIENCE for January 30. H. V. NEAL, Secretary THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA THE eleventh annual meeting of the Paleontological Society was held at Boston, Mass., in the Rogers Building of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 30 and 31, 1919, in affiliation with the Geological Society of America. The meeting was the best attended in a number of years, and numerous papers on the various branches of paleontology and stratigraphy were presented. An important item on the program was the symposium on the teaching of paleontology which was combined with a similar symposium on the teaching of geology delivered before the joint membership of the Paleontological and Geological Societies. The result of the ballot of officers for 1920 was as follows: President: F. B. Loomis, Amherst, Massachu setts. First Vice-president: E. C. Case, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Second Vice-president: Ralph Arnold, Los Angeles California. Third Vice-president: E. M. Kindle, Ottawa, Canada. Secretary: R. S. Bassler, Washington, D. C. Treasurer: Richard S. Lull, New Haven, Connecticut. Editor: W. D. Matthew, New York City. The address of the retiring president, Dr. R. T. Jackson, was on the subject "Studies in variation and a proposed classification of variants.'' Following is a list of papers presented. Recent restorations of fossil invertebrates: JOHN M. CLARKE. The "good use" of the term "fossil": RICHARD M. FIELD. The presence of Upper Silurian sandstone in Essex County, northeastern Massachusetts: A. F. FOERSTE. Paleontological collections in the vicinity of Boston: PERCY E. RAYMOND. The value of Foraminifera in stratigraphic correlation: JOSEPH A. CUSHMAN. The intercalation of thecal plates in Holocystites in connection with the criteria upon which species can be distinguished: A. F. FOERSTE. A revision of the anticosti section: W. H. TWEN HOFEL. The hydrozoan affinities of Serpulites Sowerby: W. ARMSTRONG PRICE. The Paleozoic section of the lower Mackenzie River valley: E. M. KINDLE. Echinoderms of the Iowa Devonian: A. O. THOMAS. Cambrian formations and faunas of the upper Mississippi valley: E. O. ULRICH. Bibliographic studies of the Cambrian: CHARLES Correlation of the middle Cambrian of Newfound Study of the life processes in fossils: R. S. The method of appearance of additional arms on increasing age in Caryocrinites: A. F. FOERSTE. Origin of the "Beach Rock" (Coquina) at Loggerhead Key: RICHARD M. FIELD. Notes on the teaching of paleobotany: MARIAN D. Further discussion of the ecological composition of A study of the entelodonts: EDWARD L. TROXELL. Small mammals in the Marsh collection: EDWARD L. TROXELL. A new method of restoration for fossil vertebrates: RICHARD S. LULL. The Oligocene Equide in the Marsh collection of Peabody Museum, Yale University: JOHN P. BUWALDA. The Pawnee creek beds of Colorado: F. B. LOOMIS. Nothrotherium Shastense, a Pleistocene ground sloth of North America, with remarks on the Megalonychida: CHESTER STOCK. The present status of the Paleocene: W. D. MATTHEW. SCIENCE rate. COOPERATION IN RESEARCH1 No one can survey the part played by science in the war without reflecting on the ultimate influence of the war on science. Able investigators have been killed or incapacitated, and with them a host of men who might have taken high places in research. Sources of revenue have been cut off, and the heavy financial burdens permanently imposed upon individuals, institutions, and governments must tend to reduce the funds available for the advancement of science. On the other hand, the usefulness of science is appreciated as it never has been before, and some newly enlightened governments have already recognized that large appropriations for research will bring manifold benefits to the state. The leaders of industry have also been quick to appreciate the increased returns that research renders possible, and industrial laboratories are multiplying at an unprecedented The death of available investigators, and the higher salary scale of the industrial world, have seriously affected educational institutions, members of whose scientific staffs, inadequately paid and tempted by offers of powerful instrumental equipment, have been drawn into the industries. On the other hand, industrial leaders have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental importance of scientific researches made solely for the advancement of knowledge, and the necessity of basing all great industrial advances on the results of such investigations. Thus they may be expected to contribute even more liberally than before to the development of laboratories organized for work of this nature. Educational institutions are also likely to recognize that science should play a larger part in their curriculum, and that men skilled in research should be developed 1 Address given before the Royal Canadian Institute, Toronto, April 9, 1919. in greatly increased numbers. The enlarged appreciation of science by the public, the demand for investigators in the industries, and the attitude of industrial leaders of wide vision toward fundamental science, should facilitate attempts to secure the added endowments and equipment required. On the whole, the outlook in America seems most encouraging. But the great advance in science that thus appears to be within reach can not be attained without organized effort and much hard work. On the one hand, the present interest of the public in science must be developed and utilized to the full and on the other, the spirit of cooperation that played so large a part during the war must be applied to the lasting advantage of science and research. Fortunately enough, this spirit has not been confined within national boundaries. The harmony of purpose and unity of effort displayed by the nations of the Entente in the prosecution of the war have also drawn them more closely together in science and research, with consequences that are bound to prove fruitful in coming years. The Honorable Elihu Root, who combines the wide vision of a great statesman with a keen appreciation of the importance and methods of scientific research, has recently expressed himself as follows: Science has been arranging, classifying, methodizing, simplifying everything except itself. It has made possible the tremendous modern development of the power of organization which has so multiplied the effective power of human effort as to make the differences from the past seem to be of kind rather than of degree. It has organized itself very imperfectly. Scientific men are only recently realizing that the principles which apply to success on a large scale in transportation and manufacture and general staff work apply to them, that the difference between a mob and an army does not depend upon occupation or purpose but upon human nature; that the effective power of a great number of scientific men may be increased by organization just as the effective power of a great number of laborers may be increased by military discipline. The emphasis laid by Mr. Root on the importance of organization in science must not be misinterpreted. For many years he has been president of the board of trustees of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and an active member of its executive committee. Thus kept in close touch with scientific research, he is well aware of the vital importance of individual initiative and the necessity of encouraging the independent efforts of the original thinker. Thus he goes on to say: This attitude follows naturally from the demand of true scientific work for individual concentration and isolation. The sequence, however, is not necessary or laudable. Your isolated and concentrated scientist must know what has gone before, or he will waste his life in doing what has already been done, or in repeating past failures. He must know something about what his contemporaries are trying to do, or he will waste his life in duplicating effort. The history of science is so vast and contemporary effort is so active that if he undertakes to acquire this knowledge by himself alone his life is largely wasted in doing that; his initiative and creative power are gone before he is ready to use them. Occasionally a man appears who has the instinct to reject the negligible. A very great mind goes directly to the decisive fact, the determining symptom, and can afford not to burden itself with a great mass of unimportant facts; but there are few such minds even among those capable of real scientific work. All other minds need to be guided away from the useless and towards the useful. That can be done only by the application of scientific method to science itself through the purely scientific process of organizing effort. It is plain that if we are to have effective organization in science, it must be adapted to the needs of the individual worker, stimulating him to larger conceptions, emphasizing the value of original effort, and encouraging independence of action, while at the same time securing the advantages of wide cooperation and division of labor, reducing unnecessary duplication2 of work and providing the means of facilitating research and promoting discovery and progress. A casual view of the problem of effecting such organization of science might lead to the conclusion that the aims just enumerated are mutually incompatible. It can be shown 2 Some duplication is frequently desirable. |