8/14/2019 Fifelike Forms in Meteorites

1/4

Series, Vo1:13 7, #3530, Aug ust 24 1962, pag es 623-624+626+628

M E E T I N G REPORTS

Lifelike Forms in MeteoritesAre fossils present in carbonaceous meteorites? The

evidence is suggestive but as yet inconclusive.H a r o l d C. Urey

At a meeting held 1 M ay 1962 atthe New York Academy of Sciences,a group of papers was presented dealingwith the organized elements which wereobserved in carbonaceous chondritesand described by Claus and Nagy andby Nagy, Claus, and Hennessy, andwith the hydrocarbon compounds re-por ted by Nagy, Meinschein, and Hen-nessy. These observations have excitedmuch interes t and many comments ,some critical and some tolerant, on thefindings and interpretations.A paper by O ro dealt with the non-biological synthesis of deoxy ribose andpurines under assumed primitive earthenvironments from simple compoundsof carbon. Berger reported the resultsof a similar study. He obtained acetone,acetamide, and urea from methane,ammonia, and water upon proton bom-

bardment a t a temperature of 77K.Sidney Fox presented a paper in whichhe described the preparation of someorganic artifacts, which he calls micro-spheres, from amino acids by heattreatment. H e suggested that th e orga-nized elements reported in meteoritesmight indeed be fossilized artifacts ofthis kind.Fitch and Anders discussed their ob-servations at Chicago, suggesting thatthere are two kinds of organized ele-men ts. One class, of strik ing mor-phology, was definitely of biologicorigin, they stated, but had never beenseen in slides prepared in Chicago andwas exceedingly rare in the slides ofthe Fordham group. With a single ex-ception, the particles in this classmatched in appearance terrestrial con-taminants such as ragweed and juniperpollen, unidentified particles in airbornepollen study slides from Brooklyn, andstarch grains. Organized elem ents of thesecond class, of featureless morphology,were indeed present in the Chicagoslides, though in far lower abundance24 AUGUST 1962

than the 1700 particles per milligramclaimed by the Fordham group. How-ever, in contradiction to reports by theFordham group, these particles lackedall other properties suggestive of abiological origin (I). They did notfluoresce in ultraviolet; they dissolvedin acids; they had the same density asthe principal silicate in the meteorite;and they either did not stain withbiological stains or stained atypically,giving no evidence of the deoxyribonu-cleic acid alleged to be present.Nagy, Meinschein, and Claus pre-sented evidence in regard to the min-eralogical content of the carbonaceouschondrites and the composition ofhydrocarbons extracted from these ob-jects, and evidence for the existence ofobjects of biological origin in themeterorites. Various phases of thesepapers have previously been presentedin the literature. New data were alsoincluded.

I served as chairman of the eveningconference. The participants were asfollows: Edward Anders, University ofChicago; J. D. Bernal, University ofLondon; Rainer Berger, LockheedCalifornia Company; Pier re Bourrel ly,MusCum National dHistorie Naturellede Paris; B. J. Cholnoky, NationalInstitute for Water Research, Pretoria,Republic of South Afr ica; GeorgeClaus , New York U niversi ty; Fran k W .Fitch, Un iversity of Chicago; Sidney W.FOX,Florida State University; DouglasJ. Hennessy, Fordham; W. G. Mein-schein, Esso Research and EngineeringCompany; Bar tholomew Nagy, Ford-ham; John Oro, Universi ty of H ouston;C. M . Palmer , Rober t Taf t SanitaryEngineering Center, Cincinnati; AdolphPapp, University of Vienna; Rober tROSS, British Museum (Natural His-tory); Paul Tasch, University ofWichita; Heinz Dombrowski, Universityof Giessen, Bad Nauheim; Philip Mor-

rison, Cornell; and Brian H. Mason,Amer ican Museum of Natural His tory.As chairman, I reviewed my contactwith the project from the beginning,mentioning my early skepticism in re-gard to the whole matter and my sug-gestion that additional experiments onhydrocarbons extracted f rom themeteorites be made by spectroscopicmethods, to supplement the mass spec-trographic analyses. In New York, inOctober 1961, Nagy had shown mechemical and mineralogical data point-ing to the possibility that there hadbeen life processes on the meteoriteparent body (indications of liquid water,a slightly reducing and somewhatalkaline, aqueous environment). Thesestudies established that the carbo-naceous meteorites under study were ex-traterrestrial objects, unaffected in theirinteriors by high temperatures duringtheir fall through the earths atmo-sphere. Meinschein had shown me theresults of mass spectrographic analyses,and of the ultraviolet and infraredspectra that were run at the Esso Re-search and Engineer ing Company onsamples prepared by the partial separa-tion of saturated and aromatic hydro-carbons and nonhydrocarbon com-pounds by chromatographic methodson material isolated by the Fordhamgroup. Claus had shown me microscopicexamples of what appeared to be fossilsisolated from the Orgueil and Ivunameteorites and had suggested that thesehad the appearance of microscopic fos-sils. Nagy, Meinschein, Claus, andHennessy maintained that the resultsof the various types of experimentsmust be considered as a whole in orderto evaluate the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. Claus maintained thatthe organized elements had the ap-pearance of microscopic fossils. I hadstudied microbiologic forms intensivelyfor a number of years as an undergrad-uate s tudent many years ago. The ob-jects shown me did indeed have thegeneral appearance of biological ma-terial. However , I in no way regardmyself as an expert in these mattersand I had urged that microbiologistsand micropaleontologists be consqltedin regard to the problem. The meetingin New York was called largely becauseboth Bernal and I had stressed thedesirability of consul ting additio nalexperts.Bernal outlined the problem of th e

The author is professor-at-large, School ofScience and Engineering, University of California,San Diego.623

ience, New Series, Vol:137, #3530, August 24 1962, pages 623-624+626+628

8/14/2019 Fifelike Forms in Meteorites

2/4

conference very well, pointing out thatwe need to know, first, what these ob-jects are, and second, where they comefrom. He mentioned that they mightbe contam inations, artifacts-what hecalled jokes of nature-or rem nan tsof indigenous organisms. Cholnokyheld that the problem was essentiallya biological one and stated firmly thatif these are contaminants they do notbelong in the classification of starchgrains. Also he expressed the view thatthey are not organic artifacts.Robert Ross (British Museum) re-ported on his own observations, Thesample in the British Museum is froma complete stone which now is brokenup. However, he used sterile instru-ments to scrape away the surface of thefragments and extracted the sample forstudy from the interior of the stoneafter taking this precaution. He founda smaller number of objects than thosereported by the New York group. Hemade density separations and foundorganized elements of type 1 in thefraction below 1.6 grams per cubiccentimeter and also in the fraction be-tween 1.6 an d 2.4 grams per cubiccentimeter. He found other objects aswell, which looked like collapsed sporemembranes. In addition, he found twomicroscopic bodies which he and hiscolleagues at the British Museum re-garded as indigenous and as of biogenicorigin. These had a general umbrellaor mushroom form. He concluded thatother objects were indigenous to themeteorite and stated that they lookedlike fossil hystrichosphaeres. Rosssdiscussion was particularly informativeand thoughtful.Fitch pointed out that there wereno pollen experts at the meeting andthat this was important in view of thework of Anders, Schwartz, and himselfon this question. Nagy pointed out thatthe microscope slides had been shownat a recent meeting at Tucson, Arizona,at which many experts on pollen grainswere present, some 80 of whom ex-amined the slides. It was his impressionthat none of these men advanced validarguments supporting the view that theobjects were pollen grains, thoughsome had made the suggestion. Sincethe May meeting, measurements byClaus and others on the size of thispollen grain of Anders e t al . havebeen made at the University of Cali-fornia, San Diego, and the size wasfound to lie between 15.0 an d 15.5microns, whereas Wodehouse recordsthat ragweed pollen grains vary from

624

approximately 17 to 24 microns in di-ameter. Whether drying would shrinka pollen grain by this rather substantialamount is difficult to determine, butapparently the measured sizes do notagree. Measurements on other objectsof somewhat similar structure rangedown to 12 microns. A statement inregard to the opinion of Gunnar Erdt-man is given in appendix 1. Erdtmanadmits that there is a superficial re-semblance between certain organizedelements and pollen grains but insiststhat the detailed morphologies aredifferent.Anders reemphasized the discrepan-cies between the observations of theNew Y ork and the Chicago groups. Theparticles of simple morphology wererarer by more than an order of magni-tude than had been reported by Clausand Nagy. In contradiction to previousreports, they seemed to lack all otherproperties suggestive of a biologicalorigin: fluorescence in ultraviolet andthe presence of DNA. All establishedproperties of these particles were con-sistent with an inorganic compositionand origin. The particles of complexmorphology were much rarer still; theydid not occur in the Chicago samples,they had never been seen in thin sec-tion, and it was therefore necessary toestablish that they were not merelyterrestrial contaminants, to which theybore a strong resemblance.Tasch said that what he saw on theslide reminded him of dinoflagellatesand hystrichosphaeres. He noted thatall the discussants might be correct.Some objects, for example, might verywell be terrestrial contaminants, othersmight be Foxs microspheres, and ob-jects in a third category might representextraterrestrial pelagic protists. Hepointed out that these live in wateron the earth, and that therefore thedifficult question remains of how theparent meteorite body maintained large,or even pond-sized, basins of water,together with the nutrient supply(phosphorus and so on) necessary forpelagic life. Papp pointed out thatexamples of organized elements hadbeen seen by a number of men in theUnited States, by Ross in England, byStaplin in Canada, and by Skuja inSweden. He expressed the view thatthese organized elements are indeed ofbiogenic origin and that they are indig-enous to the meteorites. He added thatthe organized elements are not terres-trial forms but resemble such forms.Bourrelly expressed the view that the

organized elements are definitely theresidue of organisms, but he did notthink they were chrysomonads.Mason urged caution in regard tothese conclusions and pointed out thatthere might well have been contamina-tion by terrestrial organisms during thelong period in which these meteoriteshav e been preserved in collections. H estated that the organic compounds inthe carbonaceous chondrites are cer-tainly of extrate rres trial origin, but hefelt that, so far, the evidence for abiological origin of these compounds isnot compelling. Meinschein, in reply,said that many saturated hydrocarbonscha racte ristic of terrestrial sedimentshad been detected and that aromaticcompounds characteristic of those insome terrestrial sediments are present.He stated again that the similarity be-tween the organic material found interrestrial sediments and in the meteor-ites was very great and that it wouldbe difficult to contam inate the specimenin any way that would imitate what wasobserved. (Again, I have consultedspecialists in regard to this question;in appendix 2 are excerpts from a letterfrom Sol Silverman in regard to apaper by Meinschein, Nagy, and Hen-nessy in which the evidence for theseconclusions was presented.) It shouldbe noted that Cloez (1864) extracteda small amount of organic compoundsfrom the Orgueil meteorite, but notenough to make a detailed study. SinceMeinschein e t al . extracted only 0.5percent, there is indication that therehas not been a large contaminationwith hydrocarbons during storage inthe last century.My own conclusion from the con-ference, and from study given to theproblems since, does not differ mark-edly from the tentative conclusion thatI reached last October. I have seenspecimens in thin sections under themicroscope that look to me like theresidue of biogenic microspecimens. Ido not believe that they could havebeen introduced mechanically, and Idoubt that they could have grown inthe locations in which they are foundsince arrival of the meteorite on earth.Two experienced microbiologists and amineralogist, who were present whenthese observations were made, agreedwith both these views in regard to thespecimens. Th e objects looked somewhatlike pollen grains, to the amateu r at least,but they were firmly embedded in thesilicate matrix and thus could hardlyhave been introduced into the meteorite

SCIENCE, VOL. 37

8/14/2019 Fifelike Forms in Meteorites

3/4

mechanica l ly , and pol len gra ins do notg r o w i n s u c h p l a ce s . Th e s e o b j e c ts f r o mClauss sl ides, taken together , make anin te res t ing a rgument . The first ( a ) isa cross sect ion of an objec t in a thinsect ion. The objec t has a wall a n dspines or p r o t u b e r a n c e s on i ts surface.I t l i es in the sur face of the th in sec t ionand can be seen c lear ly . The second(b) is buried in the minerals bel .ow thesur face in the th in sec t ion and i s em-bedded in the s i l i ca te minera l s ; i t canbe seen only imper fec t ly , b u t i t d o e shave protuberances on i t s sur face . Theth i rd (c ) i s an objec t which seems toh a v e b r o k e n l o o s e f r o m t h e m a t r i x b u thas so me minera l s s t i ck ing to i t s sur facea n d a l s o h a s p r o t u b e r a n c e s on i ts sur-face . I t i s in fac t the pol len gra in ofA n d e r s et al. Th e s e t h r e e o b j e c t s l o o kv e r y s i m i la r t o m e ( 2 ) , C l a m a n d N a g yrepor t the d iameters to be as fo l lows:a, 12.9 m i c r o n s ; b , 1 3 . 2 to 16.2 microns ;a n d c, 14.5 microns (3 ) . The f i r s t twoobjec t s a re f i rmly embedded in themat r ix . The third is of biological originaccording to a l l, or nearly al l , observers.If such re la t ionships could be conf i rmedand i f o ther such objec t s should be ob-served, there would be a f i rm basisfor a pos it ive conclus ion . I t may b e tha to ther organized e lements a re minera lart i facts or biological contaminants. Its h o u l d b e n o t e d , h o we v e r , th a t i n o r d e rto feach a posi t ive decision relat iveto indigenous fossi ls in these meteori tesi t is only necessary tha t w e be s ure tha tsome of these spec imens a re b iogenicin charac ter and indigenous to th emeteor i t es . I t should be rea l i zed tha tenthus ias t i c people m ay misc lass ify a r ti -f a c t s o f o n e k i n d or a n o t h e r , or m a ymis take a contam inant fo r an indig-enous form: in fac t , i t would be sur-pr i s ing i f th i s d id not occur in sucha s t u d y . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , e n t h u s ia s t iccr i t i cs a l so may make mis takes .I t s e e m e d to b e the genera l opin ionof all, or at least nearly al l , the part ici-p a n t s a t t h e c o n f e r e n c e t h a t f u r t h e rser ious s tudy should be g iven to th i squest ion by microbiologists , micro-paleontologists , mineralogists , geo-chemis t s , and any o ther sc ient i s t s whoc a n m a k e a c o n t r i b u ti o n t o t h e s o l u ti o nof th i s problem. I t i s doubt fu l tha t aconclus ion tha t these compounds andfossi l - l ike objects ei ther are or a r e n o tva l id evidence for ext ra te r res t r i a l l i f ec a n b e d r a wn a t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e , a l -though the evidence for ext ra te r res t r i a ll i f e i s be t t e r now than it was before .The opin ions expressed by the micro-biologists an d micropaleontologists areindeed very impress ive . I f i t can be

62 6

s h o wn t h a t t h e s e h y d r o c a r b o n s a n d t h eorganized e lements a re the res idue ofl iving organisms indigenous to the car-bonaceous chondr i t es , th i s would bethe mos t in te res t ing and indeed as tound-ing fact of al l scient if ic study in recentyears.At the c lose of the sess ion the cha i r -m a n t h a n k e d Na g y , C l a u s , M e i n s c h e i n ,and Hennessy for br inging th i s subjec tto the a t t en t ion of so many scient if icgroups , and for the i r grea t wi l l ingnessto de mons t ra te an d to d i scuss a l l de ta i lsof the problem wi th the out s tandingspecialists in the field.

Appendix 1Summary of a Discussion with Erdtmanon Organized Elements inCarbonaceous C hondrites

On 11 M ay 1962 I was privileged tohave a discussion on the above topic withProfessor Erdtman, who is director of thePalynological Laboratory of the SwedishNatural Science Research Council, Stock-holm. Dr. Erdtman, at a palynologicalmeeting in Tucson, Arizona, the previousmonth, had the opportunity to examineslides of organized elements in carbona-ceous chondrites prepared by Drs. Clamand Nagy. Dr. Erdtman is not willing toexclude the possibility that the organizedelements are some kind of spores or spore-like bodies. He emphasizes that, especiallyin the lower fungi, there is a vast plethoraof morphological types, only a few ofwhich have been definitively studied. How-ever, Erdtman emphasized that the organ-ized elements did not resemble any recentor fossil terrestrial pollen or sporelikebodies of which he was aware. He feltthat no organic solvents or extraction tech-niques could have produced the organizedelements from pollen grains with which hewas familiar. In particular, he felt that thepossible identification of the organizedelement type 5 of Nagy and Claus withpollen of the evening primrose, which wasbeing explored by Dr. H. G. Baker andmyself, is untenable.Dr . Erdtm an is one of th e worlds lead-ing palynologists, and his opinion shouldcarry great weight. That there may besome rare species of fungi which havespores similar to the organized elements isnot, I feel, a very significant possibility.If pollen or spore contamination is re-sponsible for the bulk of the organizedelements, there should be a direct relationbetween the most abundant pollen andspore particles and the most abundantorganized elements. Dr. Erdtmans anal-ysis shows that no such correlation exists.Therefore, the probability that the bulk ofthe organized elements in the carbonaceouschondrites are spore or pollen contami-nants seems extremely small. [Note modi-fied and approved by Dr. Erdtman. At thetime Dr. Erdtman approved this statement,he had not seen the ragweed pollen grainreferred t o in this paper.-H.C.U.]CARLSAGAN

Appendix 2Excerpts from Letter of 23 M ay 1962to Urey from Silverman

. . . I do not question the reliability ofMeinscheins analyses, and I concur withhis conclusions that the organic materialsidentified are comparable with biogenicand sedimentary organic materials onearth. D r. Rosenfeld read the paper and theabove comments represent his views too.The only remaining question is whetherthe organic substances analyzed by Mein-schein are extraterrestrial materials or . . .terrestrial contaminants. My first thoughtsin this regard were to consider the con-centrations of extractable bitumens; thatis, are these concentrations high enoughto rule out a reasonable level of terrestrialcontamination? To this end, the concen-trations of extra ctable mate rials in eachof the meteorites were calculated; theseare as follows:

Wt. ofsampleMeteorite (g )1-Orgueil 1.72-Orgueil 14.51-Murray 1.92-Murray 10.2Holbrook 1.8

TotalWt. ofextractedmaterials(g )

0.00710.07510.00130.00670.oooi

Wt. per-cent ofextractedmaterials

0.420.520.070.070.04It should be noted that these concentra-tions are maximum values. Although Mein-schein has separated sulfur from the ex-tracts, there is no evidence that the extractsare free of other inorganic materials re-moved by the solvents. Allowing that in-organic contaminants are not present inexcess of 10 percent, the figures in theabove table indicate that the bitumen con-tent of the Orgueil meteorite is as high

as that noted for sedimentary rocks frompetroliferous areas and believed to havebeen saturated with petroleum at onetime, Thus, unless this meteorite encoun-tered an unusual level of exposure tobituminous materials during its history onearth, this concentration must be regardedas an unreasonable level of contamina-tion. . . .If the bitumen concentration of th eHolbrook meteorite can be regarded as areasonable contamination level, then theorganic matter in the Murray is in thesame class. . . .I hope that these comments are of somehelp and thank you for bringing this in-teresting paper to my attention.S. R. SJLVERMANCalifornia Research Corporation,La Habra, California

Notes1. The following statement is published at Anderssrequest, and I have personally made observa-tions bearing on it, I observed a type 1 or-ganized element, as identified by Claus, inwater under a microscope, as hydrochloricacid was introduced at the edge of the coverslip by an assistant. These objects have a highrefracti ve index, are yellowish green, and infact look like beautiful little buttons. Therefracti ve index of the organized element de-creased markedly when the acid reached it.The one side cracked a bit, but the objectremained and did not change during about 1hour of steady observation. The residue looked

SCIENCE. VOL. 13 7

8/14/2019 Fifelike Forms in Meteorites

4/4

like an algal cell, though it may have been asilicate reddue.Also, Celeste Engel treated an Orgueil mete-orite samole from the Paris Museum with 48percent hidrofluoric acid at about 80C in asteam bath for about 8 hours. After a 2-hourand then a 4-hour treatment the hydrofluoricacid was washed from the sample and thesample was examined. After further treatmentthe remaining crud was mounted under ahigh-power microscope. I saw many outlineswith apparently unresolved cell walls of aboutthe sizes of the organized elements. Theylooked like small pellicles with the interiorsdestroyed. They were present in very greatnumbers-some six or ten in one field of thehigh-power microscope. It should be remem-bered that methods of preparing samples maymake differences in the numbers observed.Also, it is by no means certain that all sam-ples will contain precisely the same numbers.Under sufficiently rigorous conditions it is pos-sible to destroy most varieties of organicmatter. Engel worked carefully and securedsome evidence of numerous objects in mate-rial where only small numbers had been de-tected previously. In this case the identity ofthe objects in the residue and of the organizedelements was not established.Nagy and Claus maintain that ( a ) and ( c )are simflar to each other but that ( b ) isnot similar to the other two. Its spines ex -tend inward from the wall, whereas the pro-tuberances of ( a ) and ( c ) extend outward.The diameters of the bodies were measuredfrom outer wall to outer wall, exclusive ofappendages. This is the micropaleontologicaland palynological convention for defining thesize of spiny microorganisms.Bibliography

D. J. Bernal, Nature 193, 1119 (1962).M. H. Briggs, Nature 191, 1137 (1961).- nd G. B. Kitto, ibid. 193, 1119 (1962).M. Calvin, Chem. Eng. News 39, 96 (1961).B. J. Cholnoky, Umschau, in press.G . Claus and B. Nagy, Nature 192, 594 (1961).- hycol. SOC. Am . News Bull. 15, 15S Cloez, Compt. Rend. 5 8, 986 ( 1 8 6 4 ) .E. R. DuFresne and E. Anders, Geochim.F. W. Fitch and E. Anders. Ann. N.Y. Acad.

(196i).

Cosmochim. Acta, in press.Sci., in press.193. 1119 (1962).F. W. Fitch, H. P. Schwarcz, E. Anders, Nature

S. W. Fox, Science 132, 200 (1960).-, Paper presented at the symposium onextraterrestrial biochemistry and biology, AAASmeeting, Denver, 21 Dec. 1961, and at theNew Yor k Acad emy of Scien ces, 30 Apr.-1May 1962.W. G. Meinschein, B. Nagy, D. J. Hennessy,Science, in press.P. Morrison, ibid. 135, 663 (1962).B. Nagy, G . Claus, D. J. Hennessy, Nature 193,B. Nagy, W. G. Meinschein, D. J. Hennessy,- eol. SOC. Am. Paper No. 68 (1961),P. Palik, Nature, in press.F. L. Staplin. Micropaleontology 8 , No. 3, 343

1119 (1962).Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 93, 25 (1961).p. 247.

110h7)- ~ - , .H. C. Urey, Nature 193, 1119 (1962).R. P. Wodehonse, Pollen Grains (McGraw-Hill,New York, 1935).

Forthcoming EventsSeptember25-28. Electric Power Systems forSpace, conf., Santa Monica, Calif. (Amer-ican Rocket SOC., 500 Fifth Ave., NewYork 36)26-27. Physics of Failure in Electronics,Chicago, 111. (M. E. Goldberg, ArmourResearch Foundation, Illinois Inst. ofTechnology, 35 W. 3 3 St., Chicago 16)26-28. Practice of Gas Chromatoerauhy.

26-29. Austrian SOC. of Biochemistry,Society for Physiological Chemistry, Ger-man Pharmacology SOC.,Vienna, Austria.(Secretariat, Vienna Medical Acad., 4 Al-serstr, Vienna IX)27-28. Birth Defects, symp., Nashville,Tenn. (R. Batson, Vanderbilt Univ. Schoolof Medicine, Nashville)27-29. Protection of Plants and Ex-termination of Pests, symp., Magdeburg,Germany. (Chemische Gesellschaft in derD.D.R., Unter den Linden 68-70, BerlinW.8, Germany)27-29. Society for General Microbiol-ogy, Reading, England. (SGM, c/o Inst.of Biology, 41 Queens Gate, London,S.W.7, England)28-29 . Broadcast Symp., annual, Wash-ington, D.C. (G. C. Wetmore, Collins Ra-dio Co., 1825 Connecticut Ave., NW,Washington 9)28-30. Medical Psychology, intern. col-loquium, Brussels and Louvain, Belgium.(P. H. Davost, Societ6 de PsychologieMedicale de Langue FranGaise, 2 rue deRohan, Rennes, France)30-5. American SOC. for Testing Ma-terials, Pacific area, Los Angeles, Calif.(Executive Secretary, ASTM, 1916 RaceSt., Philadelphia 3 , Pa.)30-6. Medical Hydrology and Climatol-ogy, intern. congr., Baden-Baden, Ger-many. (M. Fontan, c/o Facult6 de MBde-cine, Lille, France)October

1-3. Association of Medical Illustrators,annual, Detroit and Ann Arbor, Mich.(AMI, 1853 W. Polk St., Chicago 12, 111.)1-3. Communications, natl. symp.,Utica, N.Y. (J . K. Webb, 489 Van EllisRd., Utica)1-3. Plastics, intern. congr., Turin, Italy.(Segreteria, Congress0 delle Materie Plas-tiche, Corso Galileo Ferraris 60, Turin)1-4. American Oil Chemists SOC., To-ronto, Canada (K . F. Mattil, Swift & Co.,Packers and Exchange Aves., Chicago 9,Ill.)1-4. Electroencephalographic Informa-tion, Marseilles, France. (R. Naquet, 23rue de la Loge, Marseilles 2 71-4. Iron and Steel, intern., Luxem-bourg. (Secretariat, c/ o Centre Nationalde Recherches Metallurgiques, Abbaye duVal-Benoit, Liege, Belgium)1-4. Shell Structures, intern. conf., SanFrancisco, Calif. (A. C. Scordelis, Dept. ofCivil Engineering, Univ. of California,Berkeley 4)1-5. American SOC.of Tool and Manu-facturing Engineers, Los Angeles, Calif. (R.M. Johnson, 3336 Stinson Blvd., Minne-apolis 18, Minn.)1-6. Food Standards, conf., Geneva,Switzerland. (Intern. Agency LiaisonBranch, Office of the Director General,Food and Agriculture Organization, Vialedelle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy)1-6. International Astronomical Union,symp. o n site testing, Rome, Italy. (D. H.Sadler, c/o Royal Greenwich Observatory,Herstmonceux Castle, Hailsham, Sussex,England)

1-6. Malaria, conf., Manila, Philippines.(World Health Organization, Regional Of-fice for the Western Pacific, P.O. Box2932, Manila)1-10. International Council for theExploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Den-mark. (ICES, Charlottenlund Slot, Charlot-tenlund, Denmark)2-4. Advanced Propulsion Concepts,Cincinnati, Ohio. (M. M. Slawsky, AirForce Office of Scientific Research, Wash-ington, 25)2-4. Batteries, intern. symp., Bourne-mouth, England. (D. H. Collins, AdmiraltyEngineering Laboratory, W. Drayton,Middelsex, England)2-4. Fluid Amplification, symp., Wash-ington, D.C. (by invitation only). (PublicInformation Officer, Diamond OrdnanceFuze Laboratories, Room 315, Bldg. 83,Washington 25)2-4. Physics and Nondestructive Test-ing, symp., San Antonio, Tex. (D. L.Black, Southwest Research Inst., Box2296, San Antonio)2-4. Space Electronics and Telemetry,symp., Miami Beach, Fla. (0 .A. Hoberg,Marshall Space Flight Center, M-ASTR-I, Bldg. 4487-B, Huntsville, Ala.)2-5. American Roentgen Ray SOC.,Washington, D.C. (C. A. Good, MayoClinic, Rochester, Minn.)2-5. Animal Care Panel, annual, Chi-cago, Ill. (R. J . Flynn, Argonne NationalLaboratory, Argonne, Ill.)2-5. Human Engineering. Annual inst..Stamford, Conn. (J . H. Ely, Dunlap andAssociates, 429 Atlantic St., Stamford)2-5. Prophylactic Medicine and SocialHygiene, intern. congr., Bad Godesberg,Germany. (Kongressburo, Postfach 864,Bad Godesberg)2-8. Committee on Human Genetics,World Health Organization, Geneva,Switzerland. (WHO, Palais des Nations,Geneva)2-9. Sanitary Engineers, seminar, Bel-gium. (World Health Organization, Re-gional Committee for Europe, 8 Scher-figsvej, Copenhagen @, Denmark)3 . California Acad. o f Sciences, SanFrancisco. (S . W. Muller, CAS, GoldenGate Park, San Francisco)3-5 . International Union for AppliedOrnithology, Frankfurt am Main, Ger-many. ( S . Pfeifer, Institut fur angewandteVogelkunde, Steinauer Strasse 44, Frank-furt am Main-Fechenheim)3-5. New Respiratory Disease Viruses,intern. conf., Bethesda, Md. (C. G. Loosli,Univ. of Southern California School ofMedicine, 2025 Zonal Ave., Los Angeles)3-6. Optical SOC. of America. Roches-ter, N.Y. (M. E. Warga, Executive Office,OSA, 1155 16 St., NW, Washington, D.C.)4-5. International SOC. for Geome-chanics, congr., Salzburg, Austria. (Landes-verkehrsamt Salzburg, Mozartplatz l o /&Salzburg)4-5. International SOC. of Rock Me-chanics, colloquium, Salzburg, Austria.(ISRM, Franz-Josef-Str. 3 , Salzburg)4-5. Solid Fuels, conf., Pittsburgh, Pa.(Society of Mining Engineers, Coal Div.,345 E. 47 St., New York 17)1-6. International SOC. of Photogram- 5-7. Association of Cereal Research,meeting, East Lansing, Mich. (C. G. Ha;: metry, Milan, Italy. (A. L. Nowicki, milling conf., Detmold, Germany . (Ar-riz, Houdry Process & Chemical Co., BOX c/ o Army Map Service, 6009 Massa- beitsgemeinschaft Getreideforschung, Am427, Marcus Hook, Pa.) chusetts Ave., NW, Washington, D.C.) Schutzenberg 9, Detmold)

62 8 SCIENCE. VOL. 137