WHERE DO THE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC ASSOCIATION COME FROM?
Messrs. Editors.
HAVING had a curiosity to know, in something more than a general way, how the various sections of the country contribute to the attendance at the meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I have analyzed the "registers of arrivals" of the Boston and Cincinnati meetings. The results, which may be of interest to others as well, are embodied in the following tables. In checking off so many names, there is, of course, liability to error, but some pains have been taken to make the statement correct.E.
Table I.—Attendance by States.
STATES |
Boston meeting,1880. |
Cincinnati meeting, 1881. | ||||
| Maine | 14 | 2 | ||||
| New Hampshire | 14 | 0 | ||||
| Vermont | 7 | 0 | ||||
| Massachusetts | 221 | [1] | 23 | |||
| Rhode Island | 17 | 1 | ||||
| Connecticut | 39 | -315 | 11 | -37 | ||
| New York | 170 | 45 | ||||
| New Jersey | 36 | 3 | ||||
| Pennsylvania | 47 | 18 | ||||
| Delaware | 1 | -254 | 0 | -66 | ||
| Wisconsin | 4 | 3 | ||||
| Michigan | 7 | 10 | ||||
| Indiana | 8 | 29 | ||||
| Illinois | 21 | 27 | ||||
| Ohio | 22 | 61 | [2] | |||
| Kentucky | 9 | 25 | ||||
| West Virginia | 1 | 3 | ||||
| Virginia | 3 | 2 | ||||
| Maryland | 16 | 18 | ||||
| District of Columbia | 71 | -162 | 30 | -208 | ||
| Tennessee | 6 | 8 | ||||
| North Carolina | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Georgia | 2 | 4 | ||||
| Florida | 1 | 3 | ||||
| Alabama | 1 | 2 | ||||
| Mississippi | 0 | -12 | 3 | -22 | ||
| Louisiana | 1 | 2 | ||||
| Missouri | 32 | 18 | ||||
| Iowa | 9 | 8 | ||||
| Minnesota | 4 | 3 | ||||
| Kansas | 2 | 1 | ||||
| Colorado | 0 | 3 | ||||
| Arizona | 3 | 0 | ||||
| Nebraska | 0 | 1 | ||||
| California | 1 | -52 | 3 | -39 | ||
| British Provinces | 21 | 4 | ||||
| England | 5 | 0 | ||||
| Cuba | 3 | 0 | ||||
| Boston | 164 | [3] | 0 | |||
| Cincinnati | 0 | 155 | ||||
| 988 | 531 | |||||
Table II. Attendance by Sections.
| SECTIONS. | BOSTON MEETING. |
CINCINNATI MEETING. | ||
| No. | Per ct. | No. | Per ct. | |
| From New England | 315 | 31·9 | 37 | 7·0 |
| From the Middle States | 254 | 25·7 | 66 | 12·4 |
| From the Western States east of the Mississippi, and as far south as Kentucky and Virginia | 102 | 16·4 | 208 | 39·2 |
| From the Southern States east of the Mississippi | 12 | 1·2 | 22 | 4·2 |
| From west of the Mississippi | 52 | 2·9 | 4 | 7·3 |
| From the British Provinces and beyond the sea | 29 | 2·9 | 4 | 0·7 |
| From the entertaining city | 164 | 16·6 | 155 | 29·2 |
| ———— | ———— | ———— | ———— | |
| Totals | 988 | 100·0 | 531 | 100·0 |
IDENTITY OF THE INDIANS AND THE MOUND-BUILDERS.
Messrs. Editors.
In 1875 I read a paper before the Iowa Academy of Science, on "The Mounds and Mound-Builders," in which I took the same grounds and came to the same conclusion as Professor Winchell, in his recent article on the "Ancient Copper-Mines of Isle Royale." My article was suggested by the examination of some mounds on the bank of the Mississippi, in Whitesides County, Illinois.
Among other things exhumed were one or two skeletons with anchyloses of the first and second vertebræ, and quite a number with flattened shin-bones, and also a flattened or deformed skull. In 1864-'65 there was a large number of Sioux Indians, concerned in the massacre at New Ulm, Minnesota, in the prison-camp at Davenport, Iowa. Dr. R. J. Farquharson, of that place, two or three years ago disinterred several skeletons of the prisoners who died there. He found one with the first and second vertebrae anchylosed, and several with flattened tibia, showing that platycnemism still exists among the modern tribes, and connects them with the mound-builders.
Very respectfully,
| P. J. Farnsworth. |
| Clinton, Iowa, September 1, 1881. |
A CORRECTION.
Messrs. Editors.
In your sketch of Edward D. Cope in the May number of "The Popular Science Monthly," the following statement occurs
