SCIENCE 
NEW YORK, JUNE 30, 1893. 352 
SCIENCE. 
[Vol. XXI. No. 543 
BIOLOGY IN OUR COLLEGES: A PLEA FOR A BROADER 
AND MORE LIBERAL BIOLOGY. 
BT C. HART MERRIAM, WASHINGTON, D.C. 
When it became fashionable to study physiology, histology, and 
embryology, the study of systematic natural history was not only 
neglected, but disappeared from the college curriculum, and the 
race of naturalists became nearly extinct. Natural history, as 
formerly understood, comprised geology, zoology, and botany, and 
persons versed in these sciences were known as naturalists. 
Geology gradually came to occupy an independent field, and is 
now everywhere taught separately; hence, for present purposes, 
it may be dismissed, with the reminder that the naturalist who 
knows nothing of geology is poorly equipped for his work. A 
knowledge of the two remaining branches — the biological 
branches — was looked upon as sufficient to constitute a naturalist. 
But the kind of knowledge taught underwent a change; the term 
“naturalist” fell into disuse to be replaced by “biologist,” and 
some would have us believe that even the meaning of the word 
biology is no longer what it was. Systematic zoology has gone, 
or, if still tolerated in a few colleges, is restricted to a very sub- 
ordinate position. Systematic botany is more fortunate, still 
holding an honored place in many universities, though evidently 
on the wane. 
Is it not time to stop and inquire into the nature of the differ- 
ences between the naturalist and the modern school of instructors 
who call themselves “biologists;” into the causes that have 
brought about so radical a change, and into the relative merits, as 
branches of university training, of systematic biology compared 
with the things now commonly taught as biology ? 
Is it not as desirable to know something of the life-zones and 
areas of our own country with their principal animals and plants 
and controlling climatic conditions, as to be trained in the minute 
structure of the cellular tissue of a frog? And is not a knowledge June 30, 1893.] 
SCIENCE. 
353 
of the primary life regions of the earth, with their distinctive 
types, as important as a knowledge of the embryology of the 
crayfish ? 
Naturalists delight in contemplating the aspects of nature, and 
derive enjoyment from studying the forms, habits, and relation- 
ships of animals and plants; while most of the self-styled “biolo- 
gists ” of the present day direct their studies to the minute struct- 
ure (histology) and development (embryology) of a few types — 
generally lowly forms that live in the sea — and are blind to the 
principal facts and harmonies of nature. Imbued with the spirit 
of evolution, they picture in their mind’s eye the steps by which 
the different groups attained their present state, and do not hesi- 
tate to publish their speculations — for “they know not what 
they say.” Their lives are passed in peering through the tube of 
a compound microscope and in preparing chemical mixtures for 
coloring and hardening tissues; while those possessing mechanical 
ingenuity derive much satisfaction in devising machines for slicing 
these tissues to infinitesimal thinness. An ordinary zoologist or 
botanist is not constituted in such a way as to appreciate the 
eagerness and joy with which one of these section-cutters seizes 
a fraction of a millimetre of the ductless gland of a chick or the 
mesoblast of an embryonic siphonophore; nor is it vouchsafed 
him t® really understand, though he may admire, the earnestness, 
devotion, unparalleled patience, and intense satisfaction with 
which the said investigator spends years of his life in hardening, 
staining, slicing, drawing, and monographing this same bit of 
tissue. 
Such “biologists” have been well characterized by Wallace as 
“the modern school of laboratory naturalists”—a class “to whom 
the peculiarities and distinctions of species, as such, their distri- 
bution and their affinities, have little interest as compared with 
the problems of histology and embryology, of physiology and 
morphology. Their work in these departments is of the greatest 
interest and of the highest importance, but it is not the kind of 
work which, by itself, enables one to form a sound judgment on 
the questions involved in the action of the law of natural selection. 
These rest mainly on the external and vital relations of species to 
species in a state of nature — on what has been well termed by 
Semper the ‘ physiology of organisms’ rather than on the anatomy 
or physiology of organs” (“ Darwinism,” 1890, Preface, p. vi.). 
It is hardly an exaggeration to say that in our schools and col- 
leges the generally accepted meaning of the word biology has 
come to be restricted to physiology, histology, and embryology, 
and that the courses of instruction now given in biology cover 
little additional ground, save that they are usually supplemented 
by lectures on the morphology and supposed relationships of the 
higher groups. It is against this modern custom of magnifying 
and glorifying these branches or departments of biologic knowl- 
edge until they are made to appear not only the most important 
part of biology, but even the whole of biology, that I beg to enter 
a most earnest protest. Far be it from me to deprecate any in- 
vestigation that tends, in howsoever slight a degree, to increase 
our knowledge of any animal or plant. Such investigations fulfil 
an important and necessary part in our understanding of the phe- 
nomena of life, but they should not be allowed to obscure the ob- 
jects they were intended to explain. 
Without a knowledge of anatomy and embryology it would be 
impossible to properly arrange or classify the various groups, or 
to understand the inter-relations of the many and diverse ele- 
ments that go to make up the beautiful and harmonious whole 
that naturalists and other lovers of nature so much admire. 
Similarly, the architect would be powerless to construct the mag- 
nificent edifices that everywhere mark the progress of civilization 
unless he understood the nature and properties of the various 
parts that go to make up the finished structure; yet what would 
be thought of a school of architecture that limited its teachings 
to the strength of materials or the composition of bricks, mortar, 
nails, and other minor factqrs necessary in construction? But 
would not such a school be strictly comparable with the modern 
school of histologists and physiologists who, under the head of 
biology, teach little besides the minute structure and functions 
of tissues, ignoring the characters that constitute and distinguish 
species, that show the adaptation of species to environment, that 
show the processes and steps by which species are formed, and 
the causes that govern their differentiation and distribution; in 
brief, ignoring most that is beautiful and interesting in nature, 
including the great truths that enable us to understand the opera- 
tions and laws of nature, for the sake of dwelling eternally on 
details that ought to form merely a part of the foundation for a 
study of nature. 
The evolution of these one-sided biologists is not hard to trace. 
Early naturalists, such as Linnaeus and Buffon, knew little of the 
internal structure of animals and plants; their classifications, 
therefore, were based chiefly on external characters, and were 
correspondingly crude. Cuvier was first to demonstrate the im- 
portance of anatomical knowledge in arranging animals according 
to their natural affinities, but his studies were confined to what is 
now called “ gross anatomy,” or the structure of such parts and 
organs as are visible to the naked eye. 
The great improvement made in the microscope in the years 
1830-1882 — at which time the spherical errors that had previously 
rendered its use unsatisfactory were overcome by the proper ad- 
justment of achromatic lenses— paved the way for the discoveries 
in embryology and the minute structure of the tissues that made 
illustrious the names of von Baer, Schleiden, Schwann, and a 
host of others. The revelations that followed created a profound 
sensation among the naturalists of the time, and, as the microscope 
became more and more perfect, new paths were opened to the 
investigator, and the fascination attending its use grew. The 
increased demand for good instruments stimulated the invention 
and perfection of high-power lenses and of a multitude of ac- 
cessories, the use of which, in turn, led to improved methods of 
treating tissues and to the discovery of bacteria and the various 
pathogenic micrococci of fermentation and disease. A knowl- 
edge of microscopic technic became, and justly, too, a necessary 
qualification in the way of preliminary training for those seeking 
to become biologists. 
The transition from the old school to the new was but a step, 
and had been led up to by the course of events. The older sys- 
tematic naturalists rapidly died off while still appalled by the 
wonderful discoveries of the microscopists; the professorships in 
the colleges and universities (which, at the same time, were rap- 
idly increasing in number) were filled by young men ardent in 
the use of the microscope, and each anxious to excel his colleague 
in skill and dexterity of manipulation and in the discovery of 
some new form of cell or new property of protoplasm. 
But one result could follow the continuance of this state of 
affairs, namely, the obliteration of the naturalist from the face 
of the earth — a result that at the present moment is well-nigh 
attained, for, if there is an “all-round naturalist” alive to-day, 
his. existence is due to accident or poverty. Poverty has kept a 
few lovers of nature away from college, and by this seeming mis- 
fortune they have escaped the fate that would have overtaken 
them had they possessed the means of placing themselves under 
our modern teachers of biology. These teachers have deflected 
into other channels many a born naturalist and are responsible 
for the perversion of the science of biology. While deluding 
themselves with an exaggerated notion of the supreme importance 
of their methods, they have advanced no further than the archi- 
tect who rests content with his analysis of brick, mortar, and 
nails without aspiring to erect the edifice for which these mate- 
rials are necessary. 
In trying to reconstruct a general naturalist at the present day, 
I would rather have the farmer’s boy who knows the plants and 
animals of his own home than the highest graduate in biology of 
our leading university. The, enthusiastic boy, whose love for 
nature prompts him to collect the birds, insects, or plants within 
reach, can be easily induced to take up the study of other groups, 
and thus become a local “ faunal naturalist.” After acquainting 
himself with the home fauna and flora, he may develop into a 
general naturalist if removed to another locality. The chief dis- 
advantage in manufacturing naturalists in this way is that they 
lack the education possessed by college-bred men — a want sorely 
felt in after years. 
To be well equipped for his work, a naturalist or biologist needs 
a college education; he needs laboratory instruction in modern 354 
SCIENCE 
[Vol. XXI. No. 543 
methods of biologic research; he needs practical training in sys- 
tematic and faunal zoology and botany with special reference to 
the extent of individual variation in species, the modification of 
species by food and environment, and the nature and constancy 
of specific characters in different groups; he should have the bene- 
fit of lectures on the principles of biology and on the geographic 
distribution of life; and he should be taught to work out for him- 
self the relationships and probable genetic affinities of the mem- 
bers of a few well-selected genera in different groups. 
The teacher and professional student who aspire to tread the 
higher paths of biology are unworthy of their chosen field unless 
they possess a broad and comprehensive grasp of the phenomena 
of living things — a grasp that comes only after years of patient 
study and personal familiarity with animals or plants. Perhaps 
the true explanation of much of the prevalent kind of biology 
may be found in the circumstance that a considerable proportion 
of our teachers are the output of a few institutions in which their 
studies have been guided by section cutters and physiologists. 
They are well trained in methods of research in limited fields, 
which training may be acquired in the brief space of three or four 
years, but are ill fitted to impart a knowledge of the leading facts 
and principles of biology, or of the kind of biology likely to prove 
most useful to the average student. 
Some of our universities encourage and support the most ab- 
struse and recondite investigations in the field of pure science, 
without regard to an economic outcome — for which they deserve 
the greatest credit — but such studies are rarely suited to the re- 
quirements of the ordinary college curriculum. On the contrary, 
the tendency of the times in matters of instruction is to render 
undergraduate courses more practical, so that the knowledge 
acquired may be useful in after life. With this end in view, it 
may not be amiss to inquire how the kind of biology now com- 
monly taught compares with systematic and faunal zoology and 
botany? Will anyone attempt to maintain that 10 per cent of 
the present teaching is of any value in after life, except to the 
specialist, or that more than one per cent of the students taught 
biology become specialists? It seems clear, from the standpoint 
of availability in the ordinary walks of life, that the prevalent 
kind of biology teaching is a failure. Systematic and faunal 
z. ology and botany, on the other hand, while fully equal to the 
branches now taught as a means of mental discipline, have in 
addition an economic value, and are sources of permanent interest 
and happiness to the majority of mankind. Huxley, in one of his 
early public lectures, said : “To a person un instructed in natural 
history, his country or sea-side stroll is a walk through a gallery 
filled with wonderful works of arc, nine-tenths of which have 
their faces turned to the wall. Teach him something of natural 
history, and you place in his hands a catalogue of those which are 
worth turning round. Surely our innocent pleasures are not so 
abundant in this life that we can afford to despise this or any 
other source of them ” (“ Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews,” 
London, 1870, pp. 91-92). Not only are excursions into the coun- 
try or to the sea thus made more enjoyable, and the tedious delays 
at the railway station converted into sources of entertainment 
and profit, but even much of the drudgery and routine of every- 
day life may be turned to good account. Instead of the mental 
stagnation that naturally follows the automatic performance of a 
monotonous daily task, there is an incentive to observation that 
stimulates the intellect and results in the agreeable acquisition 
of knowledge. In short, acquaintance with our common animals 
and plants appeals to an inherent desire to know more of nature 
in the aspects commonly presented to our senses; it increases the 
joys and lightens the burdens of life; it promotes the healthy ex- 
pansion of the intellect and the development of the nobler im- 
pulses and sentiments, making better men and better women. 
Another argument in favor of a knowledge of systematic and 
faunal zoology and botany is that it largely increases the amateur 
element in science and brings the great mass of the intelligent 
public nearer the technical specialist, thus creating that interest 
in and appreciation of scientific research that leads to liberal en- 
dowment. The kind of biology now taught in most of our edu- 
cational institutions has the opposite effect, tending to deepen 
the chasm between the people and the specialist. So long as an 
unfathonable abyss separates science from the intelligent citizen, 
just so long may the specialist expect to lack the earnest support 
on which his success so much depends. 
The study of systematic and faunal zoology and botany may 
seem superfluous to the physiologist, histologist and technical 
specialist who are content to contribute their mite to the general 
fund —a not unworthy ambition—but to those who aspire to 
solve the problems and master the principals of biology a broader 
view is necessary — a view that can come only to those who pos- 
sess an intimate personal acquaintance with the interrelations of 
living species and the nature and extent of their modifications — 
for how is it possible to form a clear conception of the operations 
of natural selection, of the effects of environment on species, of 
the transmission of acquired characters, of special adaptations, 
fortuitous variations and so on, without first knowing something 
of the species themselves ? It is true that a few section-cutting 
physiologists, possessed of speculative minds, have ventured to 
enter the domain of philosophic biology, but it would be ungra- 
cious to contrast their productions with those of such naturalists 
as Humboldt, Darwin, Huxley, Wallace, Haeckel, Agassiz, Hyatt, 
Cope, Dali, Allen or Ward. ' 
In order to avoid the possibility of being misunderstood, I wish 
to reiterate what has been already said in substance, namely, that 
while the present paper is intended as a plea for systematic biol- 
ogy, no complaint is made against the proportionate teaching of 
physiology, histology, and embryology, but only against the ex- 
clusive or disproportionate teaching of these branches, as if they 
comprised the whole of biology. And it may be added for the 
benefit of those who insist that the term biology should be re- 
stricted to the phenomena of life rather than the phenomena of 
living things, that, while unqualifiedly opposed to this narrow 
view, my present purpose is not to discuss the meaning of words, 
but to show the necessity of remodelling the current one-sided 
courses of instruction by the addition of systematic and faunal 
zoology and botany, with a view to the development of a broad 
and comprehensive school of biology, worthy of the age in which 
we live. 
In my judgment, university training in biology should com- 
prise : 
1. Elementary instruction in general biology, including cell 
structure and the structure of the less complex tissues of animals 
and plants. This involves laboratory work with the microscope 
and insures the necessary knowledge of microscopic technic. 
2. Lectures on morphology, taxonomy, and the relationships 
of the major groups of animals and plants, both living and fossil, 
supplemented by laboratory work which should be restricted to 
the study of types and should keep pace with the lectures, if pos- 
sible. 
3. Systematic work in widely separated groups. This work must 
be done in the museum or laboratory, and may be supplemented 
by lectures. It should include the higher vertebrates as well as 
invertebrates and plants. In the case of advanced students, 
original work should be encouraged, particularly revisions of 
genera. 
4. Faunal work, consisting of the study of the life of limited 
areas. Care should be taken to avoid too comprehensive an un- 
dertaking; and the groups chosen for study should be selected, 
as a rule, with reference to the literature or specimens available 
for comparison. The necessary field-work, if impracticable 
during the college year, may be done in vacation. Whenever 
possible, field excursions should be made at frequent intervals 
during the college year, under competent supervision. 
5. Lectures on the distribution of life. In time, paleontolog- 
ic distribution; in space, geographic distribution. These lectures 
should be illustrated by maps, diagrams, and specimens. Access 
to zoological and botanical gardens and museums is of the utmost 
importance. 
6. Lectures on the principles and philosophy of biology, compris- 
ing evolution, heredity, migrations, special adaptations, and so on. 
Botany and zoblogy should be taught separately under the 
second and third headings, and together under the first, fifth and 
sixth. Under the fourth heading they might be taught either 
separately or together, as most convenient. June 30, 1893.] 
SCIENCE. 
355 
Paleontology should form an inseparable part of biology and 
should not be taught under geology except in its stratigraphic re- 
lations. Fossil types should be studied in connection with their 
ancestors and their nearest living relatives. 
The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of exclusive 
microscopic and physiologic work. When it swings back (and 
I believe the time is not far distant) the equilibrium will be re- 
stored— the perverted meaning of the term “biology” will be 
forgotten, and the present one-sided study of animals and plants 
will give place to a rational biology and to the development of a 
school of naturalists far in advance of those who have passed 
away. 
NOTES ON PENNSYLVANIA GERMAN FOLK-MEDICINE. 
BY W. J. HOFFMAN, M.D., WASHINGTON, D.C. 
While collecting material relating to the folk-lore of the Penn- 
sylvania Germans I obtained some curious beliefs pertaining to 
the rattlesnake, and the alleged remedies employed for curing 
those bitten by this reptile. Many newspaper reports are annually 
circulated in various portions of the Atlantic Coast States to the 
effect that the reporter had discovered a veritable “mountain 
doctor,” well versed in the secret properties of plants, and that 
this personage was widely celebrated for his wonderful skill in 
curing rattlesnake bites, but that the remedy was preserved with 
the utmost care as a great and valued secret; or, perhaps, that 
the reporter of the article had received a sample, but through some 
unavoidable misfortune he had lost it, etc. 
Having consulted with some of these so-called “ mountain doc- 
tors ” to obtain and exchange matters of interest — during the past 
twenty years — it has been found that nearly all of them employ 
numerous species of plants for the ills that come under their ob- 
servation, but that only a few are really acknowledged as possess- 
ing a semblance of skill, and still less who are familiar with so- 
called snake-bite remedies. 
The plant employed by one of these “ mountain pow-wows,” 
and the only one claimed to possess any virtue, is Sanicula mary- 
landica, or sanicle, termed by the natives “master-root,” be- 
cause it “masters the rattlesnake venom.” The fresh plant 
and roots are pounded and soaked in boiling milk, when the 
mixture is applied to the wound as a poultice. A decoction of 
the same plant is also taken internally to induce diaphoresis. The 
decoction is said to be more efficacious if made with milk instead 
of water. I believe this to be the first instance of bringing this 
plant to public attention, at least as employed by these supersti- 
tious herbalists, and for the purpose stated; but as so much stress 
is placed upon the good results, even by people of recognized in- 
telligence and education, it might Dot be amiss to have made a 
series of chemical and therapeutic experiments to test the efficacy 
of the remedy. 
Another remedy employed by the superstitious of the mountain 
regions of middle and eastern Pennsylvania is to cut a live chicken 
in two, and to place the warm, raw surface of one part upon the 
part bitten by the snake. 
Rattlesnakes are of value to the mountain doctors for several 
reasons. The oil, obtained by draining the reptile after skinning 
is used to cure deafness. The rattle, suspended from a string, 
and worn by a baby, will have the power of preventing the wearer 
from having convulsions during dentition. The tongue of the 
snake, when worn in the glove, will have the power of compelling 
any girl, who grasps the gloved hand, to love the one so greeted, 
even should she ordinarily be indifferent to his attentions. 
Finally, to secure rattlesnakes, the “doctor” grasps a silk 
handkerchief at one corner, and allowing the other end to hang 
toward the serpent, teases her until she strikes it with her fangs, 
when he immediately raises the handkerchief from the ground, 
thus depriving the snake of any opportunity of disengaging her- 
self therefrom, as the slightly recurved fangs are hooked in the 
material. The “doctor” then either kills the serpent by first 
grasping her neck with the disengaged hand, so as to prevent her 
biting him, when he cuts off her head. Should he desire, how- 
ever, to keep the snake as a curiosity or for sale, he will extract 
the fangs with a small pair of forceps. 
NOTES AND NEWS. 
Professor Richard A. Proctor, the well-known astronomer 
and writer, died in 1889, of yellow fever, in New York City. His 
children were in Florida at the time, and could not be present at 
the funeral. No suggestion of a resting-place being forthcoming, 
the astronomer’s remains were buried in the undertaker's private 
lot in Greenwood. The body, it was understood, was to remain 
there until other arrangements could be made. The lot was in an 
out-of-the-way part of the cemetery, and the grave was neglected, 
there being not even a stone to mark the place. The children of 
the astronomer are all making their own living, and while their 
wish was to bury their father better, the means were not at hand. 
Recently, through the efforts of Mr. Edward W. Bok, attention 
has been called to the matter, and Mr. George W. Childs of Phila- 
delphia, has, with his usual generosity, purchased a lot in Green- 
wood, near the Flatbush entrance, to which the astronomer’s 
remains will be removed, and in October it is hoped that a suitable 
sarcophagus of granite will be dedicated with due ceremony. 
— The U. S. National Museum has recently come into posses- 
sion of a very remarkable collection of petrified trunks of an ex- 
tinct species of tree belonging to a family of plants that is now 
very rare, but which once formed a prominent feature of the 
landscape of nearly all countries. These plants are intermediate in 
appearance between tree-ferns and palms, and have as their best 
know-n living representative the common sago-palm, Cycas revo- 
luta, of our greenhouses. The fossil trunks above mentioned are 
from one to three feet in height and from six inches to two feet 
in diameter. They are in a very perfect state of preservation, 
turned to solid stone of a brown color. The largest one weighs 
900 pounds, and is the largest object of the kind ever reported 
from any part of the world. Tbey were found lying on the sur- 
face of the ground in the vicinity of Hot Springs, South Dakota, 
and were all sent to Washington by mail under the frank of the 
Interior Department. The geological formation in which they 
occurred is not known with certainty, but this class of plants 
reached its greatest perfection in what is known as Secondary, or 
Mesozoic time. It is therefore altogether probable that these 
trunks grew at that remote age and have lain strewn over the 
plains for millions of years waiting for science to gather them in 
and make them help tell the story of the earth. They have been 
placed in the Department of Fossil Plants, in charge of Prof. 
Lester F. Ward, who recently superintended the taking of fifteen 
views of them by the accomplished photographer of the National 
Museum, Mr. T. W. Smillie. This is one of the most important 
accessions the museum has received of late, and when the collec- 
tion is elaborated and the results published it will make a valu- 
able contribution to science. 
— At Denison University, Granville, Ohio, a new scientific 
building, known as Barney Hall, is approaching completion. The 
building, which is one of the most substantial scientific buildings 
in the West, will cost when finished about $65,000, and will in- 
clude chemical and physical laboratories, as well as a museum 
and laboratories of biology. Special attention is to be devoted 
to neurology and comparative neurology. An extended gradu- 
ate course in biology, and a number of fellowships have been 
provided with corresponding increase in faculty. 
—“The Story of My Life,” by Dr. Georg Ebers, is the title of a 
delightful autobiography, full of fascinating reminiscences, which 
will be published immediately by D. Appleton & Co. This auto- 
biography tells of Dr. Ebers’s student life in Germany, his associ- 
ation with movements like that for the establishment of kinder- 
garten training, his acquaintance with distinguished men like 
Froebel and the brothers Grimm, his glimpses of revolutionary 
movements, his interest in Egyptology and the history of ancient 
Greece and Rome, and the beginnings of his literary career. 
— Without making invidious comparisons, it is safe to say that 
the exhibit which Messrs. Houghton, Mifflin & Co. have arranged 
in the gallery in the northwestern corner of the Department 
of Liberal Arts in the Manufacturers’ Building at Chicago is in 
all respects worthy of somewhat careful examination. The idea 
evidently is to represent such a library as might be found in the 
house of a man of cultivation in any part of the United States. 356 
SCIENCE. 
[Vol. XXI. No. 543 
SCIENCE: 
Published by N. D. C. HODGES, 874 Broadway, New York. 
Subscriptions to any part op the World, $3.50 a year. 
To any contributor, on request in advance, one hundred copies of the issue 
containing his article will be sent without charge. More copies will be sup- 
plied at about cost, also if ordered in advance. Reprints are not supplied, as 
for obvious reasons we desire to circulate as many copies of Science as pos- 
sible. Authors are, however, at perfect lib srty to have their articles reprinted 
elsewhere. For illustrations, drawings in black and white suitable for photo- 
engraving should be supplied by the contributor. Rejected manuscripts will be 
returned to the authors only when the requisite amount of postage accom- 
panies the manuscript. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti- 
cated by the name and address of the writer; not necessarily for publication, 
but as a guaranty of good faith. We do not hold ourselves responsible for 
any view or opinions expressed in the communications of our correspondents. 
Attention is called to the “Wants” column. It is invaluable to those who 
use it in soliciting information or seeking new positions. The name and 
address of applicants should be given in full, so that answers will go direct to 
them. The “Exchange ” column is likewise open.