Each of our universities and learned societies represents a more or less well-defined and consequently narrow clientage, while the Carnegie Institution alone is truly national in its scope and influence. Also while our national scientific bureaus must devote their energies chiefly to the solution of practical problems, the Carnegie Institution alone may devote even the major proportion of its funds to the advancement of pure science. As no permanent laboratory for research in
perform it would appear that an excellent opportunity is presented in the possibility of establishing such a laboratory.
The present movement appears to have been initiated by two articles in Science advocating the establishment of such a laboratory at the Tortugas, Florida. Considerable discussion ensued; the chief questions being those of the most suitable site for the station, its auspices, and the character of its work. Opinions upon these important points were expressed by fifty naturalists, such as Barton. M. A. Bigelow, E. P. Bigelow, Chapman, H. L. Clarke, J. F. Clarke, Conklin, Dall, Davenport, Dean, Dodge, Duerden, Edwards, Evermann, Gill, Hargitt, Herrick, L. O. Howard, Jennings, H. P. Johnson, D. S. Jordan, V. L. Kellogg, Kingsley, Lillie, Lucas, McBride, McMurrich, Metcalf, Mills, Minot, Montgomery, Morgan, Neal, Nutting, Ortmann, C. H. Parker, E. Rathbun, Richards, Ritter, Rolfs, Sedgwick, Springer, R. M. Strong, Treadwell, Verrill, H. B. Ward and four others. It is evident that a large number of our most active biologists have interested themselves in the project.
Twenty of those who have expressed any opinion upon the question of site have favored more or less strongly the placing of the laboratory at the Tortugas; six recommend Jamaica; three Porto Rico; two the Gulf Coast; two the Bahamas; the Isle of Pines, Miami, Florida, and the Bermudas each one.
Although the number of naturalists who have advocated the placing of the laboratory at Jamaica is small, their opinion is evidently worthy