Władysław Szafer (Poland)
CREATIVITY IN A SCIEN TIST’S LIFE: AN ATTEM PT OF ANALYSIS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE SCIENCE OF SCIENCE
Assuming th a t scientific creativity is not very w ell known, and, as a rule, less popular among a w ider public than, say, lite ra ry or artistic creativity, the auth o r asserts th a t this is h arm fu l both to science and to scientists. In order to contribute, if only to some extent, to th e im pro vem ent of this situation, a scientifically precise analysis of creativity in science has to be taken up.
THE STARTING-POINT OF THE STUDY
This study does not claim any far-reaching generalization of its re sults. N evertheless, I hope it m ay be of in terest to scientists or even to people who are not involved in science d irectly b u t interested in it if only because science was, is and will always be one of the most pow erful factors in m ankind’s progress and culture.
The em pirical m aterial used in this study is strictly lim ited. It con sists of a group of 70 scientists, whose nam es I have chosen undelibera- tely; they have been selected in a cursory survey of th e easily acces sible biographical sources in the lib rary of the In stitu te of Botany of th e Polish Academy of Sciences at Cracow. Thus, the group of 70 nam es is b u t a small sam ple of the large total num ber including all botanists of th e more recent times. This is not a stric tly random sample, though, such as is used by statisticians or biom etricians, because afte r a random selection of 50 long-lived botanists of d ifferent specializations I have added 20 o ther nam es w ith a view to m ake the group more rep resen ta tive. Of course, only those have been included in the sam ple who 1) had devoted all their lives p rim arily to science, 2) whose lives I could get acquainted w ith in detail from th eir biographies or sometimes from m y
own m em ory, and 3) those who had left an u n in terru p ted scientific out pu t in the form of printed publications, i.e. w ithout longer intervals of inactivity.
The group consists exclusively of botanists. It seems, however, th a t th e regularities observed in the lifetim es and the scientific activities of our group of botanists are sim ilar to, or even identical w ith, those which could be observed in groups of scientists representing differen t natu ral sciences (geologists, geographers, zoologists etc.). To a sm all extent, I have tak en notice of these among the zoologists and geologists whom I observed m arginally. W hether the regularities observed can be recognized as essentially valid for all scientists, or some of these even for all creators in any field of cu ltu ral creativity, is a question th a t can be answ ered only afte r separate fu rth e r investigations.
SPECIFIC FEATURES OF THE SAMPLE OF 70 BOTANISTS
T hat the sam ple analysed here is sufficiently representative is, I think, attested by the following features.
1. The sample includes scientists from 18 European and American
countries. The p articu la r scientists have not been included in the sample by w ay of m ere raffling, b ut nevertheless in a fairly random m anner and w ithout preconceived choices. Poland is represented by 11 names, G erm any has 11 representatives, Sweden 6, Czechoslovakia 6, the Soviet Union 5, B ritain 4, A ustria 4, France 4, S w itzerland 4, th e N etherlands 3, Italy 3, the U nited States 3, Canada 1, Mexico 1, N orway 1, H ungary 1, D enm ark 1, Brazil 1.
2. Our list includes those names of deceased scientists who had
published their works exclusively or m ainly in the 20th century. A small percentage of them had published th e ir papers in the second h alf of th e 19th or tow ards th e end and a t the beginning of the 20th centuries.
T ab le 1
G roups o f b o ta n ists a cco rd in g to th e y ea rs o f p u b lica tio n s
Specification N um ber o f
persons Percentages Published papers exclusively in th e 19th century
(C elakovski, D elp in o , H artig, M iquel, de Bary and
K orshinski) 6 9
M ajority o f papers published in th e 19th century 10 14 Published papers at th e end o f th e 19th and
the beginning o f the 20th centuries 10 14 Published papers exclusively in th e 20th century 44 63
3. Table 2 contains the basic list of the group of 70 scientists a rra n ged according to the durations of th e ir lifetim es. It is called basic be cause it contains several additional data ap art from the durations of th e ir lives. This Table w ill be referred to several tim es la ter on. It is also im portant because each scientist is given a num ber in it, w hich w ill occasionally stand for his full name.
In order to obtain a sim plified and clear picture of th e respective lifetim es of the scientists Table 3 has been arranged according to the decreasing order of the consecutive periods of five years reached by th e scientists.
T ab le 3
D u ra tio n o f life tim e s o f s c ie n tis ts fro m th e sa m p le o f 70
Five-year periods
o f life N um ber o f scientists
Five-year periods o f life N um b er o f scientists 9 3 —90 4 5 9 — 55 7 89— 85 2 5 4 — 50 3 8 4 — 80 9 4 9 —45 0 7 9 —75 12 4 4 —40 • 1 7 4 — 70 15 39— 35 1 69— 65 8 3 4 — 30 0 6 4 —60 7 2 9 —25 1
If we assume the 70th y ear of a scientist’s life as the latest re tire m ent age, in our group 42 scientists (60 per cent) reached and survived it, m atu re age (40—69) was reached by 26 persons (37 per cent), and 2 scientists (3 per cent) died in young age, i.e. at less th an 40. It follows th a t the group analysed here is relevan t for a study of th e in terd ep en dence between scientific creativity and th e durations of th e ir lives, for alm ost all (68 out of 70) m em bers of the group lived a full life, i.e. youth, m atu rity and old age, attaining also full scientific creativity, or else th ey lived at least into m a tu rity (partly or in full). Obviously, it has not been attem p ted to include in th e list young botanists who died p re m atu rely and had not reached m ature age and, consequently, had m a nifested th e ir potential scientific creativity to a sm all ex tent only.
4. A nother common feature to all m em bers of the group is th a t the
periodicity of th e ir lives is not dependent on w h eth er th e given person was a professional or am ateu r botanist.
5. A fu rth e r specific featu re of the group is the diversity of the specializations represented by the scientists.
Table 4 lists 15 specializations of th e group of 70 scientists. This list is not accurate, and in some cases it is perhaps not true. This is due to the fact th a t I could have easily been m istaken in establishing the p ri m ary fundam ental specialization of th e scientists; in m ore profound and com petent analyses research specializations listed as second or th ird m ay
N u m b e r
N am e Post Country Age
D a tes o f birth and death N um b e publicat scientific o f ions others Research specializations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Jules Pavillard P U G renoble and others France 93 1868— 1961 ' 98 _ A lg o lo g y, system atics, so cio lo g y o f plants
2 Bohum il N em ec P U Prague and others C zechoslo 93 1873— 1966 454 215 Physiology, cytology, anatom y
vakia
3 A gnes Chase C ustodian at m useum U nited States 90 1869— 1959 67 — A gros tology, system atics
4 Edwin Bingham Copeland P U C alifornia, Berkeley U nited States 90 1873— 1964 186 — P hysiology, taxonom y, agricultural botany o f tropical countries
5 B olesław Hryniewiecki P U W arsaw and others Poland 88 1875— 1963 158 — P lant geography, floristics, history o f botany, plant anatom y,
preservation o f nature 6 Paul V ictor Fournier Teacher at m onastic sch ools, D .D France 87 1877— 1963 50 — Floristics, system atics
7 Jules Offner P U G renoble France 84 1873— 1957 157 — M yco lo g y, pharm acology, floristics, plant geography
8 E m il G odlew ski, Sr. P U Cracow Poland 83 1847— 1930 80 — Physiology, agrochemistry
9 Carl Scottsberg P U and manager o f botanic garden
G oteborg Sweden 83 1880— 1963 294 — G eography, florostocs, taxon om y, algology
10 A d o lp h o D u c k e Self-taught amateur Brazil 83 1876— 1959 132 — D endrology, floristics, system atics, plant geography
11 L ou is Charles Lutz P U Paris France 81 1871— 1952 155 — M yc o lo g y , physiology, cytology, teratology
12 Th. A rch. Sprague Scientist at botanical garden K ew Britain 81 1877— 1958 279 — S yste m a tics, taxonom y
13 W ilhelm D etm er P U Jena Germany 80 1850— 1930 78 — P hysiology, agrobotany
14 Oskar Drude P U D resden Germany 80 1852— 1933 178 — P la n t geography, system atics
15 K arl G oebel P U M unich and others Germ any 80 1855— 1935 207 — O rganography, m orphology, ecology
16 F . W . C h. A reschong P U Lund Sweden 78 1830— 1908 68 — A n a to m y , physiology, system atics
17 Stanisław S okołow sk i Pat H igher S ch ool o f Forrestry, Lwow Poland 78 1865— 1943 160 — D endrology, forest cultivation
18 R obert W ilhelm K o lb e Am ateur, Ph. D . Sweden 78 1882— 1960 87 — A lgology, diatom s
19 Sandor Jävorka C ustodian at museum Hungary 78 1883— 1961 141 — Floristics, system atics o f vascular plants
20 M axim ino Martinez P U and m anager o f m useum , M exico M exico 78 1888— 1964 78 — F loristics, system atics, m edical plants
21 O tto Renner P U M unich, Jena Germ any 77 1883— 1960 127 — G enetics, system atics, physiology
22 H u gh H . Thom as D o cto r o f law and botanist Britain 77 1885— 1960 49 — Palaeobotany, evolution o f seed plants
23 O tto R osenberg P U Stockholm Sweden 76 1872— 1948 60 — C y to lo g y, genetics
24 J o sef Podpera P U Brno C zechoslo
vakia 76 1872— 1954 148 219 Geography a n d sociology o f p la n ts, bryology, floristics
25 Richard Kräusel P U Frankfort on Main Germ any 76 1890— 1966 175 — P ala eo b o ta n y
26 Felix Eugen Fritsch P U L ondon Britain 75 1879— 1954 106 — A lgology, anatom y, system atics o f higher plants
27 Kurt N oack P U Berlin and others Germ any 75 1888— 1963 49 46 P la n t physiology, biological chemistry
28 R enato Pam panini P U Florence Italy 74 1875— 1949 306 — Floristics, plant geography, preservation o f nature
29 Jaroslav Peklo P U Prague C zech oslo
vakia 74 1881 — 1955 73 — P hysiology, p hytopathology, cytology, m orphology, paleobotany
30 Federico D elp in o P H igher Sch ool and m anager o f
b otanical garden Genua Italy 72 1833— 1905 117 B iology o f flo w ers, general b iology, m orphology
31 E. F. Glinka-Janczewski P U Cracow Poland 72 1846— 1918 70 D evelopm ental m orphology, anatom y, system atics, genetics
32 A ugust F. Ch. Went P U Utrecht N etherlands 72 1863— 1935 180 — P hysiology, p athology
33 C la f Hagerup C ustodian o f m useum D enm ark 72 1889— 1961 46 — M orphology, ecology, plant geography, system atics
37 Zygm unt W óycicki P U W arsaw and Lwów Poland 38 P aul W ilhelm M agnus P U Berlin Germ any 39 Carl Schroter P Polytechnic Zurich Switzerland 40 R obert C hodat P U G eneva Switzerland
41 Harald K ylin P U Lund Sweden
42 Ernest Gaum ann P U Zurich Switzerland 43 Jadw iga W oloszyńska P U C racow Poland 44 L. J. C elakovski P U Prague C zech oslo
vakia 45 Edward Strasburger P U B onn and Jena G erm any
46 Oscar Juel P U U ppsala Sweden
47 R ichard W ettstein P U V ienna Austria 48 W . L. K rishtofovitch P U Leningrad, M o sco w and others Soviet U n io n 49 Ernst G ilg P and cu stodian o f m useum Berlin Germ any 50 H u g o Z apalow icz D o cto r o f law Poland 51 N o el Y vri Sandwith Custodian o f m useum K ew Britain 52
53
Jens H o lo m b o e Clarence Emmeren
P U O slo N orw ay
K ob u ski Am ateur U nited States
54 R obert Hartig P U M unich and others Germany 55 Franz Firbas P U G ottingen Germ any 56 John Briquet M anager o f m useum and botanical gar
den Geneva Switzerland 57 F . A . W. M iquel P U A m sterdam and others N etherlands 58 M elchior Treub M anager o f b otanical garden Buitenzorg N etherlands 59 A ch ille Forti D o cen t at M odena and Padova Italy 60 R . F . M arie Victorin P U M ontreal Canada 61 H . H andel-M azzetti C ustodian o f m useum V ienna A ustria 62 A n to n de Bary P U Strasburg and others G erm any 63 Friedrich Vierhapper P Veterinary A cad em y V ienna Austria 64 W incenty Siem aszko P H igher S ch o o l o f A griculture W arsaw Poland 65 M arian R aciborski P U L w ów and Cracow Poland 66 S. P. K ostitchev P U Petersburg S oviet U nion 67 Karel Hruby P U B rno and Prague C zechoslo
vakia 68 Jo sef Brunnthaler A m ateur Austria 69 S. I. K orshinski P U T om sk and Petersburg Soviet U nion 70 A nton i Żm uda D o cto r, assistant at Cracow U niv. Poland
70 1844— 1914 611 — D evelo p m en ta l m orphology, system atics, m ycology, floristics
70 1855— 1928 185 P la n t g eography a n d ecology, algology, peat-b og and m ead ow in
vestigations
70 1865— 1949 464 ■ G eneral b o ta n y , anatom y, physiology, system atics, algology,
bacteriology
70 1893— 1963 150 A lg o lo g y, b io lo g y , system atics, m orp h ology, anatom y, physiology,
cy to lo g y
70 1893— 1963 253 — M y co lo g y, p a thology, system atics, physiology
69 1882— 1951 55 — A lo g lo g y, palaeobotany
68 1834— 1902 192 _ M o rp h o lo g y, floristics, system atics, history o f botany
68 1844— 1912 124 — C yto lo g y, anatom y, physiology
68 1863— 1931 89 — A n a to m y , physiology, cytology, system atics, m ycology
68 1863— 1931 115 S y ste m a tic s, m orphology, anatom y, ecology, plant geography,
palaeob otan y
68 1885— 1953 347 — P a laeobotany, geology, plant geography, system atics
66 1867— 1933 202 — S y s te m a tic s , pharm acognosy
65 1852— 1917 54 — P la n t geography, floristics, geology
64 1901— 1965 184 — S y s te m a tic s , floristics
63 1880— 1943 277 — F lo ristics, plant geography, ec o lo g y , history o f botany
63 1900— 1963 65 — D endrology, floristics
62 1893— 1902 156 — D endrology, p athology, physiology
62 1902— 1964 103 P la n t geography, p alynology, system atics
61 1870— 1931 273 S y ste m a tic s, plant geography, taxonom y
60 1811— 1871 305 T a xo n o m y, floristics, m orphology, anatom y, plant geography,
physiology, history o f botany
59 1851— 1910 103 — S y ste m a tic s, anatom y, cytology, b io lo g y o f flowers
59 1878— 1937 134 — A lg o lo g y, hydrobiology, history o f botany
58 1885— 1944 107 177 S y s te m a tic s , plant geography, ecology, organizer o f science
58 1882— 1940 144 — P la n t geography, floristics, system atics
57 1831— 1888 94 ' C om parative a n d develo p m en ta l m orphology, m ycology, algology,
cyto lo g y , anatom y, system atics, bacteriology 56 1876— 1932 73 — S ys te m a tic s , floristics, plant geography, ecology
56 1887— 1943 33 — M y co lo g y, phytop ath ology, ecology
54 1863— 1917 160 Palaeobotany, com parative m orphology, plant geography, m ycology,
cyto lo g y , algology, preservation o f nature 54 1877— 1931 168 — Physiology, biochem istry, m icrobiology
52 1910— 1962 174 — G enetics, en tom ology
43 1871— 1914 39 — Algology
39 1861— 1900 49 — P la n t geography, floristics, ecology, general b iology
T ab le i
D iv is io n o f th e sa m p le o f 70 s c ie n tis ts a cco rd in g to th e ir p r in cip a l sp e c ia liz a tio n s *
Principal speclializations N um b er o f scientist from T ab le 2 N um ber o f scientists 1. A grostology 3 1 2. A lg o lo g y 1, 18, 26, 41, 43, 59, 68 7 3. A natom y 16, 46 2 4 . General b io lo g y 40 1 5. B io lo g y o f flowers 30 1 6. C ytology 23, 36, 37, 45 4 7. D en d ro lo g y 10, 17, 53, 54 4 8. Ph ysiology 2, 4, 8, 13, 27, 29, 32, 34, 66 9 9. Floristics 6, 19, 20, 28, 35, 52, 70 7 10. G eography and ecology 5, 9, 14, 24, 39, 50, 55, 61, 69 9
11. G enetics 21, 67 2
12. C om parative and d evelopm ental m or
p hology 15, 31, 33, 38, 44, 62 6
13. M y cology 7, 11, 42, 64 4
14. Palaeob otany 22, 25, 48, 65 4
15. System atics (taxon om y) £ 12, 47, 49, 51, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63 9
* N a m e s o f s c i e n t i s t s i n t h e s e c o n d c o lu m n h a v e b e e n s u b s t i t u t e d b y th e ir n u m b e r s f r o m T a b le 2.
have to be shifted to the first place. N evertheless, the possible m istakes in this respect do not deprive th e data of Table 4 of all value for a description of our group of 70 scientists, because th e Table n ever theless shows th a t the m em bers of the group represented at least 15 d if feren t botanical specializations.
PRODUCTIVITY INDEXES
A scientific life finds its expression p rim arily in scientific publi cations and, therefore, publications are th e principal basis for an eva luation of the creativity of each scientist. A lthough they are the main but not the only form of expression of scientific creativity, the q u an ti tative output becomes alm ost the only palpable basis in comparisons of all kinds. The other forms, w hich are often equally im portant, are m uch more difficult to grasp, i.e. to be defined in such a w ay th a t they could express accurately and univocally the differences betw een the p a rti cular scientists. In this study, such features characterizing th e scientific creativity and, at the same time, the social value of the group of scien tists have not been disregarded but, first and foremost, the output of printed scientific papers has been recognized as im portant. Obviously, th e ir quality ra th e r th an q u an tity is most im portant, bu t in lists sim ilar to ours it is th e q u an tity th a t comes to th e fore, since it is difficult and sometimes a rb itra ry to define th e value of the papers w hich are inspiring
science, such th a t establish new trends, discover new facts and w orking methods, c a rry out syntheses and contribute to p u ttin g into practical application (especially in economic life) theoretical discoveries. Values of this kind cannot be expressed num erically. This notw ithstanding, I have also attem p ted to take into account this difficult evaluation of the quality (value) of th e scientific output of each of the 70 botanists.
It is relativ ely easy to notice th a t a full life of a scientist consists of four n atural periods: I — the period of youth (absorbing or assim ilating knowledge), II — the period of flourishing creativity, w hich consists prim arily in m anifesting one’s inborn creative abilities in p rin t, III — the period of m a tu rity w hich finds its expression in selective scientific production, in teaching and social activities, and IV — the period of old age, w ith all th e accompanying specific circum stances. It is to be said at once th a t the highest productivity, i.e. quan titativ e production, of scien tific creative w ork occurs as a rule in period II, less often in period III. Table 5 presents the indexes of th e productivity as shown in p rin ted publications by each of th e 70 botanists. Of course, the num ber of p u blications by each of the 70 botanists. Of course, the num ber of publica tions only is involved, and not an evaluation of th eir quality. The in dexes have been calculated by dividing the sum of publications w ithin each of the four periods by its duration expressed in years.
The indexes of th e scientists’ production calculated for th e four pe riods of th e ir lives refer often not only to th eir scientific publications but sometimes also to all those papers w hich they have ever published (popularizing papers, obituaries, occasional articles, book reviews, reports read at scientific congresses and conferences, and even sm all notes). It could be useful to m ake a careful selection from the whole of a scien tist’s printed output in order to separate scientific papers from all the other ones and next to take into consideration exclusively the scientific papers (possibly including handbooks and popularizing works). The rest would be left out. However, in m y opinion, such a procedure would not be right, since both the full productivity and the full creativ ity of a scientist’s life are adequately expressed only by the whole of his p ro duction, both q u an titativ ely and qualitatively. Even those publications w hich are distinctly non-botanical m ay fu rnish valuable data concer ning the scientist’s personality and to establish his place w ithin the n a tional and w orld histories of science.
For these reasons I have decided to include in one presentation all the publications of each of the 70 scientists, i.e. both scientific papers in the broadest sense and publications on social and related issues, no m atter how far they m ight diverge from botany proper. N evertheless, in a few cases another w ay has been taken: w hen a scientist’s non-scientific acti vities were so d ifferen t and abundant th a t they constituted as if another line of his life’s w ork. To this group belong botanists who w ere either
T a b le 5
P r o d u c tiv ity in d e x fo r fo u r p eriod s e x p r e ss e d b y th e ratio of th e num ber o f p u b lic a tio n s to th e d u ra tio n s o f th e p erio d s in years
N um b er in
basic list / 11 IIO I I I I V
N um b er in basic list / I I 110 I I I I V 1 0.7 2 .7 2.7 2.4 0.4 36 1.5 3 .6 3.4 1.5 0.7 2 5.0 6 .2 6.8 3.0 0.8 37 1.7 4.2 4.5 1.6 0.8 1.8 7.7 8.4 9.6 2.9 3 0.7 1 .7 1.7 1.5 0.4 38 9.0 18.5 18.9 17.9 6.2 4 3.4 5.2 5.5 2.2 1.4 39 0.8 4.3 4.7 4.4 1.8 5 1.7 2.5 2.3 3.6 1.4 40 7.6 29.3 18.9 5.6 5.0 6 — 2.8 2.8 1.3 0.4 41 1.7 3.5 3.8 3 .7 3.6 7 1.2 2.3 2.6 4 .7 2.0 42 2.9 3 .9 4.4 3.1 0.3 8 0.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.6 43 1.0 2.4 2.0 1.1 0.2 9 2.2 4.9 5.8 5.1 2.6 44 1.4 5.8 6.2 4.9 2.9 10 — 2.3 5.6 2.9 2.8 45 3.0 1.9 3.2 3.3 — 11 3.5 6 .0 8.3 2.5 0.1 46 1.9 2.2 2.6 1.5 2.0 12 3.2 8 .6 11.2 4.5 1.1 47 2.2 3.6 3.3 1.3 0.8 13 2.2 3 .7 4.0 0.9 0.05 48 3.1 6.6 12.0 6.5 6.0 14 3.4 4.4 5.3 2.0 0.8 49 2.2 6.5 7.7 2.8 1.6 15 3.4 4.1 4.4 3.1 — 50 — 0.7 0.7 2.2 — 16 0.3 2.2 2.7 1.0 0.6 51 2.2 5.0 6.0 4.0 — 17 3.4 5 .6 7.0 2.4 0.2 52 4.0 7.4 6.2 4.8 5.5 18 — 4.3 5.2 (0.2) 2.7 53 — 1.6 3.1 1.7 — 19 0.7 3.1 3.8 2.4 2.2 54 0.3 3.8 4.8 6.0 — 20 0.3 1.3 0.8 2.9 0.8 55 2.2 3.0 3.0 1.8 — 21 1.6 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.6 56 4.0 8 .7 12.3 2.4 — 22 2.3 0.9 1.0 0.3 0.7 57 2.6 7.3 9.8 8.6 — 23 1.0 2.2 1.6 0.9 0.6 58 3.5 4.1 6.1 1.2 — 24 3.2 3.5 2.3 1.3 59 5 .0 2.0 3.3 2.2 — 5 .7 4.9 4.4 2.8 2.6 60 1.4 2.8 2.3 4.1 — 25 1.6 6.2 6.0 2.6 — 61 3.2 3.6 4.5 4.0 — 26 3.3 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.0 62 2.3 3.1 3.4 1.3 — 27 0.1 1.6 2.1 1.3 — 63 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.6 — 28 3.7 8.3 7.1 7.8 2.2 64 1.1 2.2 2.7 0.6 — ' 29 — 3.1 3.2 1.2 0.7 65 2.8 7.2 7.9 3.1 — 30 1.2 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 66 0.8 3.7 4.5 7.9 — 31 2 .0 1.5 2.0 1.3 — 67 7.3 6.0 5.4 5.4 — 32 2.0 4 .2 4.7 3.7 3.0 68 1.0 2.4 4.4 — — 33 0.3 1.2 1.7 1.2 0.6 69 1.7 2 .7 2.0 — — 34 1.0 4.1 6.2 4.5 11.1 70 3 .7 (2.6) — — — 1.2 4 .2 4.9 1.5 0.6 35 1.3 4.2 4.5 9.5 2.8 T otal 2.5 4.3 4.8 3.1 1.9 N o t e : F o r n u m b e r s 2, 24 a n d 35 t w o s e p a r a t e p r o d u c t i v i t y in d e x e s h a v e b e e n c a lc u la te d : t h e u p p e r i n d e x e s r e f e r t o th e ir s c i e n t i f i c a c t i v i t i e s , w h e r e a s th e l o w e r r e f e r e ith e r to t h e ir s o c ia l (o r o t h e r ) a c t i v i t i e s or to t h o s e w h o h a d a n o t h e r p r o f e s s io n b e s id e s (e. g ., la w ) a n d w o r k e d p r o d u c t i v e l y in b o th .
both scientifically fertile and socially active or had two professions and worked productively in both. This group consists prim arily of B. Nemec (2), J. Podpera (24), F. Novak (35), R. F. V ictorin (60), and K. H ruby (67). There are fu rth e r names resem bling these eith er in high productivity (a high index of it) or else in having m any interests, b u t it is impossible to m ake any strict classification of them here.
Since 40 persons from the group of 70 botanists (i.e. 59 per cent) had th e ir m axim um qu an titativ e scientific production in period II, and 19 persons in period III, it can be stated th a t period II is the most im por ta n t of the four in this respect.
THE FOUR PERIODS IN A SCIENTIST’S LIFE
Description of the first period
Before I proceed to a discussion of the first period I w ish to point out th a t this period is preceded by a prelim in ary (initial) phase, w hich is linked up w ith the education th a t the fu tu re scientist obtains at hom e and in secondary school. A ccurate data concerning th is topic cannot be often found in scientists’ biographies. O ur group has also fu rnished n eith er abundant nor precise inform ation. Therefore, the initial phase w ill not receive as m uch attention as it deserves.
The initial phase begins often very early, at the age of 15 or 16. In our group this m anifests itself most often by taking a vivid in terest in th e local flora, collecting herbaria, and sometimes also insects or m ine rals on t[he one hand, and by reading general works as w ell as easily available botanical literatu re, not in freq u en tly surprisingly sp e c ia lists
(e.g., on algae, fungi, weeds, mosses etc.) on the other. Secondary school
children, however, take an interest in botany p rim arily under th e con dition th a t they cherish an inborn inclination to it (what is called a liking).
From the standpoint of social benefits, greatest attention is to be paid to the secondary school teacher (at th e „gym nasium ”, „lycaeum ” and others), because it is he who evokes in th e boy or girl a love to le a rn ing from the v ery outset of his/her education. This category of teachers deserves the closest attention not only from th eir direct superiors b u t also from the highest educational authorities, because these teachers are the first to sow th e seeds th a t afterw ards yield scientists.
The first period is one of rapid developm ent in the life of a scientist belonging to our group. It is characterized by a process of absorbing scientific knowledge by the young botanists, not only in the field of bo tany, which m ight have already been chosen by some of them as „th eir” science, but also in the other fields of science, such as zoology, geology, chem istry, physics, philosophy etc. In period I, w hich may considerably extend over th e tim e-lim its of the university education, the assim ilation of knowledge in different fields seems to be determ ined prim arily by an inborn scientific inquisitiveness, and the su b ject-m atter m ay be chan ged. Therefore, in this period, and especially in its initial phase, tem po
ra ry or lasting shifts in the subject of a scientist’s interests occur. D u ring the critical period of searching for the rig h t w ay th ere even occur cases of complete changes in th e scientific interests. In effect of this youthful “searching” it m ay happen th a t a young botanist becomes a zoologist or vice versa, w hereas a law yer or theologist, even advanced in th e ir studies, m ay choose botany as the field of their fu tu re scientific work. There are also cases th a t a young botanist does not abandon the second field of scientific investigations, and works in both fields throughout his life. An exam ple from our group of 70 scientists is P ro fessor K. H ruby, who w orked sim ultaneously in botany (genetics) and in entomology.
The process of absorbing knowledge by a young scientist in period
I m anifests itself in abundant readings in scientific literatu re, especially
in the specialization chosen. It seems th a t the w idely know n and liked books w ere and continue to be the most im p o rtan t lite ra tu re of period
I (or even of its prelim in ary phase).
The reading activities usually effect the bringing fo rth of the first publications of the young scientists; these are usually book reviews, w hich belongs to the features specific of period I. Of course, th e w rit ing and p rinting of reviews (not polemics) of the books read are not an exclusive pro perty of youthful age, for it happens th a t m any scientists w rite reviews, and especially polemics, in periods II, III and IV. N ever theless, the freq u en t publication of review s by young scientists in period
I belongs, as I thin k , to the characteristic features of this period of the
scientist’s developm ent. A p articu la r exam ple of concentrating reports from the literatu re read is the case of the outstanding Soviet physio logist Maksimov, who as assistant in botany a t the In stitu te of Forestry at Leningrad m ust have devoted th e whole y ear 1906 (he was th en 26) to intensive readings in the literatu re and to w riting num erous reports.
The intensiveness of the penetration into th e scientific literatu re in period I is the principal determ inant of the la ter erudition of the young botanist, w hich is im portant and can be strikingly great. B ut the accu m ulation of erudite knowledge (reading) m ay be so rapid and m any- -sided th a t the erudition m ay become superficial and “encyclopaedic”, w hich m ay reta rd the com m encem ent of th e scientist’s own creative re searches. In passing from period I to period II, an extrem e erudite may content him self w ith th e intensive assim ilation of inform ation from the literatu re he reads. In extrem e cases such an erudite becomes a scientist of low productivity and little or not at all creative. Full of quotations from literatu re, his papers from period II add very little and usually bear the characteristics of being m erely contributions. An extrem e eru dite m ay be a good academic teacher, bu t he is unable to establish a scientific school of his own, because he is n either a discoverer nor a creator in any field.
Erudites who rem ain throughout th e ir lives as if on th e level of learning, i.e. assim ilating a m axim um knowledge gained by someone else, are not represented in our group, because it includes only bota nists of high and m edium productivity. Moreover, our scheme of the “four periods” of developm ent of a scientific life does not apply to erudites, either.
To th e characteristic featu res of period I belongs the acquisition of scientific degrees. If we disregard the low er degrees (such as, e.g., those of dem onstrator, junior assistant, or assistant conservator in m useum s
etc.), the most im portant w ere and continue to be th e degrees of doctor
and docent. W hereas th a t of doctor is norm ally acquired tow ards the end of period I, the degree of docent comes often only in period II or it is not obtained at all because em inent scientists m ay be appointed p ro fessors w ithout previously having been granted the title of docent; also, there are scientists who, though w orking in m useum s, scientific centres or in in d u stry do not apply for the degree of docent.
It m ay happen exceptionally th a t th e re is no period I in a scien tist’s life, b ut nevertheless featu res characteristic of period II tu rn up im mediately. This is the case of only four persons from our group. Their first publications, w hich w ere som ew hat retard ed in relation to th e ir respective age, bear th e characteristics of original works, p roper to period II.
Period I can be gone th rough in p art in full by young botanists only. This is a fu rth e r proof of the validity of dividing a scientific life into four separate periods in accordance w ith th e laws of the physiolo gical developm ent of a hum an organism.
The dividing line betw een period I and period II is not very distinct, but it m ay be clear-cut occasionally. It is ra th e r indistinct in those cases w hen the first fu lly original and independent scientific papers appeared very late. This line is very distinct in th e lives of those botanists who, in response to different impulses, v ery quickly tu rn into creative scien tific investigators.
Impulses A ffecting Scientific Creativity in the Second Period
The first and forem ost im pulse is intrinsic in each b otanist’s ow n self: it is the indigenous passion for scientific inquiry. This passion can be designated as a peculiar ability, a liking, or even vocation, and it drives him from period I in which he assim ilated knowledge to a higher level of creative work. The flourishm ent of a scientist’s own creativity comes inevitably as a n a tu ra l phase of the physiological (biological) develop m ent of his organism . The indigenous genial abilities stim ulate a genial and m any-sided scientific creativity — if th ey are great th e resulting creativity is great, if th ey are sm all the creativity is correspondingly
o.\\07>
iB N g
small. But, in any case, a tru e scientist, i.e. someone who devotes his life to science, enters necessarily th e second period of his scientific life. The exceptions covering the extrem e erudites have been m entioned above.
A part from medicine, psychology and genetics, th ere seem to be no possibilities of analysing causally the essence of th e inborn creative abi lities of each scientist. On the other hand, the extern al im pulses stim u lating creative scientific activity, especially at the m om ent of the scien tist’s passage from period I to period II, can be defined m ore or less precisely.
To the most im portant im pulses belong: 1 — encouragem ent and exam ple from em inent scientists, usually th e first academic teachers of th e young botanist, 2 — personal contacts w ith other outstanding scien tists and a sh orter or longer scientific practice in th e ir research centres (laboratories, field-w ork centres, m useum s etc.), 3 — direct contacts w ith natu re by participating in scientific expeditions to exotic countries, or organizing analogous excursions by oneself. There is one additional im pulse stim ulating scientific creativity or bringing about its periodic recurrence. This im p o rtan t role of stim ulating creative activity is p er form ed by the change either in th e research m ethod, or in th e subject- -m atter of the researches, or even in the change of the place, tim e and conditions of work.
Scientific travels are th a t im pulse w hich stim ulates the perception, comparison and th e search for causal relationships occurring between n a tu ra l phenom ena—abilities given to everyone by n atu re —in order to know the interdependencies betw een them and th e ir physical setting. Here we should p u t in the first place individual scientific travels or participation in team expeditions. An exam ination of our group of 70 bo tanists is p articu larly interesting from this point of view. The overw hel ming m ajority of them carried out long-run botanical investigations du ring expeditions in d istan t countries, or else th ey spent m uch tim e in field-w ork, especially sea-board stations, in exotic botanical gardens, on d istant islands or in not easily accessible jungle, m ountains or deserts. It is difficult to resist the im pression that, w ith a few exceptions, nearly all botanists of our group cherished a deep desire to stu d y the life of plants in distant areas. The d irect contact w ith natu re—especially un touched nature—was for m any of them not only a satisfaction of a strong desire b u t also provided them w ith an inexhaustible abundance of observations and m aterials on which they often made th eir most im portant dicoveries in natura or afterw ards in laboratories and h er baria.
The Polish version of this paper includes precise data concerning the scope of the im pact of each p a rticu lar bo tan ist’s scientific travels on th e ir creativity. H ere two exam ples seem to be sufficient.
K arl Goebel from Munich, who was an outstanding disciple of de B ary and founder of a school of his own as w ell as a keen observer of th e morphology and life of plants in n atu re and in th e laboratory, throughout his life collected on his dissection table thousands of species of exotic plants in order to build on this huge m aterial a new original construction of an “organography of p la n ts” as w ell as to w rite the first outline of an Experimental Morphology. At th e end of his life he stated th a t scientific travels had always been the greatest joy of his life. He m ade such travels throughout his life. In the east he first trav elled in India, Ceylon and Java, in th e w estern hem isphere he w en t through South America (Venezuela, P aran a, B ritish G uiana and the Andes up to 4500 m.), th en th rough A ustralia and New Zealand, finally w en t to th e U nited States, Brazil, and, at the age of 70 (sic!) he trav elled for the last tim e once more to Jav a and S um atra. He intended to go to Jav a afte r retirin g but died in an accident in the 80th year of his life.
C. Skottsberg began his scientific travels very soon (at th e age of 21) as participant of the Swedish expedition on th e “A n tarctic” w hich lasted for th ree years, and, afterw ards, throughout his life he m ade either team -expeditions or botanical individual excursions on th e islands and continents of the far south of South America, th e islands of th e Pacific (Don Juan, Hawaii and others), of the Indian Ocean, in th e Arctic, in A frica and Europe. It can be safely said th a t everything th a t he had accomplished in the geography of plants, algology, and the syste- m atics of vascular plants he owed to th e discoveries m ade in the course of his scientific expeditions. He was th u s first of all a great scientist- -trav eller, and his teaching activities as professor at the un iv ersity of Göteborg m ust be m entioned in the second place only.
W hat has been said about the im portance of investigating n atu ra l phenom ena in n atu re itself shows th a t this constitutes a pow erful im pulse, inexhaustible in its richness and diversity, w hich stim ulates ori ginal creative w ork p rim arily in th e second period of scientific deve lopm ent of every n aturalist. This fact im plies clear indications for all institutions concerned w ith th e education and the fu tu re of young bo tanists passing from period I to period II; they m ust be provided w ith favourable conditions to participate in scientific expeditions, both on land and on sea, as w ell as support for th e ir plans—if these are justified-—to go not only to famous laboratories b u t also to th e still u n damaged virgin nature.
A fu rth e r group of im pulses evoking, or periodically renew ing, the dim inishing scientific creativity are th e changes introduced in scientific researches in th ree aspects: changes of the m aterial studied, change of the m ethod employed, and finally change of place of w ork w hen a scientist moves to a com pletely new centre. It m ust be emphasized th a t this diversified group of im pulses has a stim ulating effect on
a scientist’s w ork in each period of his scientific life, b u t it is of p a rti cular im portance in periods II and III.
H ere are b u t a few exam ples of changes th a t w ere favourable for the scientific creativity of several m em bers of our group of 70 bota nists.
Ju les P avillard, who u nder th e influence of B raun-B lanquet changed his algological interests to phytosociology a t th e age of m ore th an 50 (in 1922) became an original and influential propagator of this branch of botany, w hich was then very young.
R. Chodat was one of the m any-sided students of plants. He was a florist, a system atist (the m onograph of Plearococcus)-, he w orked in the geography, ecology, anatom y, cytology and physiology of plants, he w orked creatively in bacteriology and biochem istry (ferm ents, oxydases), he grew cultures of algae; finally, as an outstanding specialist on the flora of the Alps he founded an Alpine observation garden, w here he organized courses. Besides, he had a vivid interest both a rt and philo sophy.
M arian Raciborski, genially talented and m any-sided, in the first phase of his creative activity an outstanding palaeobotanist, afterw ards morphologist, physiologist, anatom ist and cytologist. A uthor of brilliant m onographs of Javanese ferns, fungi and algae. Founder of Flora Pol
ska (Polish Flora), as w ell as of the Polish botanical school, organizer
of science, social w orker and popularizer.
Not less than 46 botanists, i.e., 65.7 per cent out of our group of 70 botanists, changed essentially th e su b ject-m atter of th e ir research work entering differen t fields of botany. There are almost no one-sided spe cialists among them , w hich is v ery significant.
It seems th a t one factor th a t checked the progress of specialization in the course of the last century was prim arily a very wide range of lectu res, especially at universities, w hich w ere often linked up w ith practical classes in d ifferent botanical disciplines (both descriptive and experi m ental) as w ell as freq uen t n atu ra list excursions (not only floristic), w hich w ere obligatory for all students of botany. An equally im portant factor contributing to th e m any-sidedness of stu den ts’ interests was th e fact th a t professors did not lecture on th e same branches of botany, b u t changed th e ir topics and ranges frequently.
The freedom of teaching for professors and th a t of learning for s tu dents—m oderated by the reasonableness and experience of the acade mic authorities—furnished, in m y opinion, a m ore favourable atm os phere for th e unrestricted developm ent of young scientifically talen ted people th a n today.
A radical change in the teaching and learning, especially at the uni versities, on large scale occurred in m any countries afte r th e second
w orld w ar. Even if we ascribe the best intentions to th e introduction of far-reaching changes in the previous style of learning and teaching, the reasonableness of these changes is supported by asserting th a t every science has grown both them atically and methodologically to such an extent th a t it is impossible to get w ell acquainted w ith all the branches it consists of. For instance, it is m aintained th a t a botanist cannot w ork creatively a t the same tim e in morphology, anatom y, cytology, genetics, floristics, taxonomy, geography of plants, ecology and palaeobotany (and this is b ut a rough division of botany!), and therefore a specialization is necessary in order to know w ell only one, or even p a rt of, sector of bo tan y to work creatively in it.
This view cannot be accepted. The analysis of the m any-sided origi nal and creative scientific activity of our sample of 70 botanists in the course of th e last hundred years shows th a t it was not a privilege of a few individuals of e x trao rd in ary abilities to w ork in an original and creative w ay in several d ifferent sectors of botany, b u t also th a t the same effect (though on a low er level) was achieved by m any other bo tanists.
M oreover, this kind of changes in the field or m ethod of work undoubtedly enriches and stim ulates creative work. A tem porary or tran sito ry specialization is advantageous, since it not only stim ulates but also deepens scientific creativity. B ut a long-lasting or constant specialization planned beforehand (or imposed) dim inishes the scientific horizon of th e young scientist and is an obstacle in his m any-sided de velopment. A specialist w ith narrow horizons can perform the function of popularizing science on a large scale only exceptionally and w ith great difficulties. On the whole, the value of his social activities is ra dically dim inished.
The em inent Polish chem ist and scientist of wide horizons, the re cently deceased Professor Janusz Supniew ski said th e following state m ent on specialization a t the general assem bly of the m em bers of the Polish Academy of Sciences in December 1963 (Nauka Polska 1964, vol. 12): “A narrow specialization determ ines quicker effects. On th e other hand, it is necessary to look upon the specialized field of research from a w ider perspective of the related disciplines. At present, specialization prevails, b ut integrative tendencies are also paving th eir w ay.”
Though being in full agreem ent w ith this wise opinion, I cannot help expressing the apprehension th a t those v ery desirable integrative te n dencies are and will be suppressed in the nearest fu tu re by the w idely spread opinion of certain specialistic Scientific In stitu tes (controlled, among others, by m inistries and enterprises) th at it is supposedly only specialization th a t can secure a rapid progress in scientific researches, and, for this v ery reason, specialization ought to be given strong sup port to.
The Climax of Scientific Creativity in the Second Period
W hat is th e essence of scientific creativity? This question has been asked so frequ ently and controversially by m any more or less compe ten t authors th a t I am not going to pay m uch heed to it here. One of the new er definitions of “creativ ity ” has been recently given by E. P. Torrance, Professor of Educational Psychology at the U niversity of M innesota (quoted from Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences, Sum m er 1965); it ru n s as follows: “C reativity is
a process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in know ledge, missing elem ents and disharm onies, and so on; identifying the difficulty; searching for solutions; m aking guesses, or form ulating hypo theses about the deficiencies; testing and retesting these hypotheses and possibly modifying and retesting them ; and finally com m unicating the resu lts.”
L et us also quote from the same source J. B. W iesner’s definition, w hich differs from th a t of E. P. Torrance: “C reativity is principally used to m ean activity resulting in contributions th a t have novelty and value in the intellectual sphere of hum an experience, including the sciences, as w ell as literature, music, and the visual a rts.”
One can frequently read th at success in research w ork is sometimes provided by intuition. According to J. D. Brow n (in the same source) intuition “is a m ysterious quality of subconscious association of ideas — the com bination of ideas to form new ideas. It requires a vast complex of accum ulated knowledge... The intuitive instinct of a creative scholar can be dulled by his own habits of mind or by his environm ent.”
According to L. S. Kubie (from the same source), w hat he calls the “preconscious processes” are the most pervasive and continuous and it is just these m ental processes th a t play a great role in the creative acti vity of man.
A fter this digression in the am biguous concepts of creativity and intuition let us tu rn to description of period II.
Because we have already shown (cf. p. 10) th a t both the productivity (its indexes have been shown in Table 5) and the diversity and originality of the scientific problem s solved are greatest in this period, it has been recognized th a t the whole of period II is the flourishm ent of scientists’ talents and it is m arked by the highest intensiveness in th eir other activities. However, the “optimal subperiod” comprised in it is the most striking phenom enon of the period. It has been called IIO (O = optimum, or m axim um creativity) because th e scientist’s creativity flourishes best then, and his productivity index reaches its m axim um in it (cf. Table 5).
Subperiod IIO is only p art of period II and not a separate period in a scientist’s life. This statem ent is supported by the fact th a t subperiod
IIO does not occupy one constant place w ithin the whole of period II,
but it m ay occur either at its beginning, or in its m iddle, or at its end. It can be stated th a t the whole of period II covered exactly IIO in one or two cases only. Thus, w ithin period II subperiod IIO appears to be a variable and movable part.
The subperiod IIO is conspicuous because it is, as a rule, the most productive period in a scientist’s life and it characterizes best his creative individuality. This is the reason for its having been noticed previously; it has been assumed th a t it lasts for ca. 10 years, and th a t it comes so m ew here in betw een the 30th and the 40th y ear of a scien tist’s life.
From S. H. C larke’s article on “F ru itfu l Careers in Science” (New
Scientist, 22 A pril 1965) we learn th a t, according to his own obser
vations, the age of about 33 to 35 seems to be the crucial stage in the life of the scientist. By th a t tim e the scientist has, as a rule, “settled dow n” in his place of w ork and chosen the specialization he intends to w ork in. C larke’s observations, to be tru e, refer to scientists w orking in industry, but, mutatis mutandis, th ey seem to be attrib u tab le to all other scientists. They certainly refer to our group of 70 botanists.
One problem connected w ith the optim al subperiod IIO is th e answ er to the following question: is the optim al creativity lasting about 10 years a universal phenom enon w hich is constant and fairly invariable, or is it a variable phenomenon? It is obvious th a t the answ er to this difficult question cannot be furnished m erely on the basis of the analysis of our group of 70 scientists. We may, though, approxim ate this question by taking into consideration the subperiod IIO and classifying th e botanists in th ree groups according to th eir dates of birth. Table 6 presents the
results of these comparisons.
T ab le 6
T h e sa m p le o f 67 b o ta n ists d iv id ed in to 3 grou p s a ccord in g to y ea rs o f b irth Group N um b er o f botanists Y ears o f birth D uration o f
subperiod II O A g e o f botanists in IIO m in.-m ax. M m in.-m ax.. M ± /n ± a
years
1 22 1811— 1863 7 — 12 10.22 2 5 — 50 35.73 ± 0 .3 6 5.39 2 22 1865— 1879 5 — 13 10.— 2 4 — 52 36.13 ± 0 .3 9 5.73 3 23 1880— 1910 6 — 15 9.43 2 6 — 50 38.40 ± 0 .4 0 5.88
It is evident th a t in the course of the 100 years of w ork of our group of 70 scientists n eith er the average length of IIO (about 10 years) nor the average age of the scientists who w orked most intensively in this subperiod underw ent any essential change. The th ird (youngest) group
of them differs som ew hat from th e two o th er groups, b u t th ere is actually no difference betw een th em since th e slight shift — or re ta r dation — of the end of subperiod IIO m ust be explained by the diffi culties in th e w ork of scientists, especially th e difficulties in getting scientific papers published du rin g the first and, partially, also during the second w orld w ar.
In m y opinion, the problem touched upon here belongs to the most interesting ones from the standpoint of the science of science. B ut this problem can be discussed only over a wide span of tim e and on much broader m aterials than those furnished by our group of 70.
Producer and Creator— Scientist and Scholar
In determ ining the productivity of each scientist of our group two figures have been used: the num ber of all p rin ted papers, and the pro d u ctivity indexes in the four periods of scientific life. However, pro ductivity expressed solely by th e sum of papers published does not prove by itself th a t the given person was a scholar, who by his own creative work contributed to th e progress of th e science. Nor is every m em ber of our group called a scholar. We should like to reserve this denom ination for those who w ere very talen ted and devoted to science and who w rote such scientific papers w hich w ere new, original and essentially contributed to the progress of th e discipline.
In this sense, even the highest productivity is not sufficient for a scientist to be ranked together w ith the scholars—m akers of science. This is attested by th e names contained in Table 7.
The following characteristics of the first tw o botanists are intended to explain the exceptionally rich, one could even say record w riting fertility of the four botanists from th e first group.
B. Nemec, a p easant’s son of unusual v itality and great scientific abilities, had a long and exceptionally productive period of scientific and social work. He was a disciple of Celakovski (afterw ards of Stahl, S trasburger, and Warming), had great m erits for botany in general, and for botany in Czechoslovakia in p articular. The physiology of plants, cy tology as w ell as physiological genetics owe to him m any discoveries (the role of the statoliths, regeneration, im pregnation, m icro-elem ents and others). He was an efficient organizer, Rector of C harles’ U niver sity at Prague (1923), founder of th e m odern Botanical In stitu te, founder and editor of the Studies of the Institute of Plant Physiology of Char
les’ University at Prague and Biologia Plantarum, he also edited two
popular scientific magazines, Vesmir and Ziva. He educated m any disciples. He edited handbooks and encyclopaedias. Well know n abroad, he lectured at London U niversity in 1927. In period I I and p artly in
A lis t o f 67 b o ta n ists arran ged a ccord in g to th e n u m b er o f p u b lica tio n s
N um ber Num ber
from
basic N am e* Age
N um ber o f publications
Productivity
index H O Rem arks** Group from
basic N am e* A ge
N um ber o f publications
Productivity
index IlO R em arks** Group
list list 2 B. N em ec 93 2 1 5 + 4 5 4 = 669 J6.81 111 = 9.6 61 H . H andel-M azzetti 58 144 4.5 38 P.W . M agnus 70 611 18 4 / 18.9 I I I = 17.9 •o §* 2 ? ? T O 59 10 A . Forti A . D ucke 59 83 134 132 3.3 5.6
40 R . C hodat 70 464 18.9 2 1 c £ ON *0 21 O. Renner 77 127 2.3 •o 9
35 F. A. N ovak 72 98 + 324 = 422 ( SI 1 1 1 = 9.5 I 3 - 45 30 E . Strasburger F. D elpino 68 72 124 117 3.2 3.2 c _ o a- o c — ■ — 'O ° i 24 48 28 57 9 J. Podpera W . L . K rishtofovitch R. Pam panini F. A . M iq u el C. S k o ttsb e rg 76 68 74 60 83 1 4 8 + 2 1 9 = 367 347 306 305 294 4.4 12.0 7.1 9.8 5.8 n C Ki n 2 © ^ 47 26 58 55 37 R. W et ts tein F. E. Fritsch M. Treub F. Firbas Z . W ó ycicki 68 75 59 62 71 115 106 103 103 102 3.3 1.8 3.0 3.0 4.5 S. w 5 ° 2 3 O n S. 60 52 56 42 34 15 R . F. Vic to r in J. H olm boe J. Briquet E . Gäumann M . A . M a ksim o v K . Goebel 58 63 61 70 72 80 284 277 273 253 243 202 2.3 6.2 12.3 4.4 6.2 4.4 1 1 1 = 4.1 o 7 2 s L ■§ | 8 b 1 27 57 46 18 g J. Pavillard K. N o a ck A . de B ary O. Ju el R. W. K olbe E. G odlew ski 93 75 60 68 78 83 98 95 94 89 87 80 2.7 2.1 9.8 2.6 5.2 1.8
44 L . J. C ela ko vski 68 192 6.2 36 S . G. N avashin 71 78 3.4
4 E. E. Copeland 90 186 5.5 13 W . D etm er 80 78 4.0
39 K. S chröter 70 185 4.7 20 M . M a r tin e z 78 78 C.8 11 1 = 2.9
51 N . J. Sandw ith 64 184 6.0 63 F. Vierhapper 56 73 2.2 tj _
32 A . F. Ch. W en t 72 180 4.7 29 J. Peklo 74 73 3.2 1 ś 9
25 E. Kräusel 76 175 6.0 31 E. Ja n czew ski 72 70 2.0 § 1 J
14 O. D rude 80 178 5.3 | _ 0 S 2 3 16 F. W . Areschong 78 68 2.7 o 8 5 67 K . Hruby 52 174 5.4 3 A . Chase 90 67 1.7 3 0 < 66 S. P. K ostitchev 54 168 4.5 o' 1 c p 1 tJ 53 C. E. K obuski 63 65 17 S. Sokołow sk i 78 160 7.0 C. kj i 8 S 23 O. R osenberg 76 60 1.6
65 M . R a cib o rski 54 160 7.9 43 J. W ołoszyńska 69 55 2.0
5 B. H ryn iew iecki 88 158 2.3 I I I = 3.6 50 H. Z apalow icz 65 54 0 .7 1 1 1 = 2.2
7 J. Offner 84 157 2.6 I I I = 4.7 6 P. V. Fournier 87 50 2.8
54 R . H a rtig 62 156 4.8 69 S . /. K orshinski 39 49 2.0
11 L. H . Lutz 81 155 8.3 22 H . H . Thom as 77 49 1.0 I = 2.3
41 H. K ylin 70 150 3.8 33 O. H ager up 72 46 1.7
19 S. Jävorka 78 141 3.8 64 W. Siem aszko 56 43 2.7
