[Levitation: Reply]Author(s): Eds.Source: The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Feb., 1944), p. 163Published by: American Association for the Advancement of ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/18104 .

Accessed: 01/05/2014 22:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to The Scientific Monthly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Thu, 1 May 2014 22:05:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMENTS AND CRITICISMS Call to Arms

I believe that The Scientific Monthly ought to have a section dedicated to criticism of the writings it publishes. This wouLld enhance its scientific spirit. -J. M. Martinez.

Levitation I am not accustomed to the general practice of mak-

ing an issue of the presentations of scientists in Sci- entific Journaals. An article in the Monthly for Oc- tober, 1943, does, however, need refutation from malny sources and I hereby contribute my objections,

This article by one Leo Kartman is mistitled, " So- ciological Excursions of Biologists. " It should bear some such caption as, "Biological Misconcep- tions of a Sociologist."

The gist of Mr. Kartman 's arguments on the them( of the non-applicability of biological laws to man is the hoary sociological thesis that man is a creatur( apart from this mundane world and not subject tc the operation of forces that govern in the respective organiie alnd inorganic spheres of influence.

I do not attempt to aniswer Mr. Kartman 's naiv( presentations,-any ''B ' student who has completed a High School biology course could do that. I only ask that when such articles are in the future pre, sented for your consideration, you accept them only on the condition that the author jump out of your window (I hope youL are on the sixth floor) as a demonstration that the laws of gravity will be sus. pended in his favor because he is a human being.- R. A. Hefner.

No! We are on the eighth floor.-Eds.

We Muffed It On page 476 of the November, 1943, issue of The

Scientific Monthly there is an attractive photo- graph captioned "Habitat Group of Quetzal from Guatemala." It is to be hoped that the Field Museum, to which this group is ascribed, has labelled it otherwise inasmuch as the alleged Quetzal birds in this illustration bear an ext:raordinary resemblance to peacocks but, on the other hand, do not resemble any illustrations of the Quetzal which I have seen. Nor do they resemble the recollection of the Quetzal on the part of travelers to Guatemala with whom I am acquainted.

It is suggested that the next issue of The Scientific Monthly contain arn appropriate correction and, in accordance with the good-neighbor policy to our fellow American country, Guatemala (whose na- tional emblem is the Quetzal), a new illustration, as well, showing the actual habitat group of the Guate- Tnn.1n.vn Ciietz.1 _Alfror N. Gldsmnith1

Inadvertently the F'ield Museum sent us a pho- tograph of peacocks mislabeled quetzals. We published it innocently. Later we obtained from the same museum a photograph of a habitat group of genuine quetzals. We intended to pub- lish it, but the WPB intervened, requiring con- servation of paper. Nevertheless our apologies to our Guaternalan neighbors are just as pro- found as if we had illustrated this acknowledge- ment and correction of our error. We also pub- licly express our appreciation of the restrained and delicate manner in which Dr. Goldsmith ex- posed our ignorance. After all we have seen pea- cocks.-Eds.

Also Muffed I suppose a millioni people have written to you that

the life span of Louis Agassiz is not that indicated below his portrait in the last [October, 1943] number of The Scientific Monthly. I think that the dates relate to his son Alexander.-W. H. Wright.

They do, and we can't laugh that off.-Eds.

No Ham and Eggs I happen to be one of your members and receive

The Scientific Monthly and I want to express some eomments about the first article in the July 1943 issue entitled "The Older Worker." I wish that every- body in the country could read this article-read it with care and read it with thoughtfulness. It is excellent and I think Dr. Carlson has done a fine job in getting up this article and you have done a fine job in publishing it....

I would also especially comment; on page 6, column 2, commencing "In fact, tasks for which men and women past fifty, sixty and seventy are thoroughly capable lie all around us like mountains but we do not see thenm." This is so true with a great many but some of us, including myself, not only see the mountains but see the tasks as well. We are per- fectly willing to pay a reasonable price for such work to be done and the different jobs are consis- tently coming to light and could be done by anyone- that is, as far as age is concerned-but we will not pay $12 a day for simple little tasks which a man seventy could perform even though it took him twice as long as a man of thirty. I, myself, would very willingly pay $5 a day but I certainly will not pay $12.00. These tasks are with us, they are all around us all the time, but the momelnt yo-u suggest any- thing like $5 you are constantly up against this is below the union scale. The result is the work is undone, the older people are without the funds and no one accomplishes anything with this kind of an attitude.-W.Hl.H.

1I

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Thu, 1 May 2014 22:05:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions