INHERENT INVALIDITY OF ODOR CLASSIFICATION 35 REFEKENCES (1) Jevons, W. S., "The Principles of Science: A Treatise on Logic and Scien- tific Method," Macmillan and Co., New York (1875). (2) Broadfield, A., "The Philosophy of Classification," Grafton & Co., London (1946), p. 12. {3) Sayers, W. C. B., "A Manual of Classi- fication for Librarians and Bibliog- raphers," Grafton & Co., London (1926), p. 36. (4) Poincar•, H., "The Foundations of Science," The Science Press, New York and Garrison, N.Y. (1913), p. 349. (5) Ostwald, W., "The System of the Sciences," in "The Book of the Rice Institute," Rice Institute, Houston, Tex. (1912), vol. 3, p. 787. (6) Pearson, Karl, "The Grammar of Science," Adam and Charles Black, London (1911), p. 6. (7) Naves, Y.-R., "Les ParSums Syn- th&iques," in "Quintessences," L. Givaudan & Cie., S.A., Geneva (1946), p. 66. (8) Bogerr, M. T., "Synthetic Organic Chemistry in the Study of Odorous Compounds," Columbia University Press, New York (1927), p. 5. (9) Pearson, op. cit., p. 53. (10) Poincar•, op. cit., p. 350. (11) Bliss, H. E., "The System of the Sci- ences and the Organization of Knowl- edge," Phil. $ci., 2, (1), 86 (1935). (12) Bliss, H. E., "The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences," Henry Holt and Co., New York (1929), p. 192. (13) Pearson, op. cit., p. 6. (14) Dewey, John, Introduction to Bliss's "The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences," op. cit., ... p. vul, (15) Pearson, op. cit., p. 54. (16) James, William, "The Will to Believe" and other essays in "Popular Phil- osophy," Longmans, Green, and Co., New York (1917), p. 7. (Reprint of edition of 1897.) (17) Theophrastos, "Concernlne Odours." in qmry into t'lants, and Minor Works on Odours and Weather Signs/' with an English translation by Sir Arthur Hort: London and New York (1916), p. 385. (18) Ibid.,p. 327. (19) Linnaeus, "Odores Medicamentorum," Amoentates academical, 38, 183 (1752). (20) Zwaardemaker, H., "L'odorat," Oc- tave Doin, Paris (1925), p. 189. (21) Cited by Poucher, W. A., "Perfumes, Cosmetics and Soaps," vol. 2, 6th edition, Van Nostrand Co., New York (1941) ,p. 60. (22) Cited by Zwaardemaker, op. cit., p. 181. (23) Idem. (24) Cited by Zwaardemaker, op. cit., p. 182. (25) Henning, H., "Der Geruch," Verlag von Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig (1916), p,p. 80-98. (26) DimmicE, Forrest L., "A Note on Henning's Smell Series," Am. •. Psychol., 33, 423 (1922). (27) MacDonald, Malcolm K., "An Experi- mental Study of Henning's System of Olfactory Qualities." Ibid., 33, 535 (1922). (28) Findley, A. Elme, "Further Studies of Hennlng's System of OLfactory Quali- ties," I•id., 35, 436 (19,24). (29) Bentley, Madison, 'Qualitative Re- semblance Among Odors," Psychologi- calmonographs, 35, 144 (1926). (30) Gamble, Eleanor A. McC., "The Psychology of Taste and Smell: Status of 1929," Psychol. Bull., 26, 566 (1929). (31) H. azzard, Florence Woolsey, "A Descrip. t•ve Account of Odors," )e. Exp. Psy- chol., 13, 297 (1930). (32) Crocker, E. C., and Henderson, L. F., ,, ß . . ,, Analys•s and Clasmficatmn of Odors, Am. Perruiner, 22, 325 (1927). (33) Crocker, E. C., "Comprehensive Method for the Classification of Odors," Proc. Sci. Sect. Toilet Goods Assoc., No. 6 (Dec. 5, 1948). (34) Boring, E.G., "A New System for the Classification of Odors," Am. •. Psy- chol., 40, 345 (1928). (35) Ross, Sherman, and Harriman, A. E., "A Preliminary Study of the Crocker- Henderson Odor-Classification Sys- tem," Ibid., 42, 399 (1949). (36) Foster, Dean, "A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Odors," Thesis, Cornell University (1949). (37) Crocker, E. C., "The Rationale of Odor Classification," J. Soc. Cos- metic Chemists, 2, 15, (1950). (38) Crocker, E. C., an, d Dillon, Florence N. "Odor Directory,' Am. PerSumer, 53, Nos. 4 and 5, 293 and 396 (1949).

DISCUSSION CHAIRMAN: I am sure we all agree that both of the preceding papers were excellently presented. Mr. Crocker and Mr. Sagatin would be more than pleased to have your comments, questions, or general participation in this forum on odor classification. DR. LAUrrER: I agree that Mr. Sagatin has raised many points here to support his thesis that present systems of classification are somewhat imperfect and ineffectual. However, I don't see anything in either of these two papers to indicate that we cannot hope for some future classification that will be acceptable. Possibly this may be based on further work on partial anosmia. I won- der if we shouldn't rule out a great many of the observations that have been made in the past, especially in the light of the work of Dean Foster which we heard reported yester- day. He reported that there was a great deal of partial anosmia. Possibly some of the observers who have been used for experi- ments in the past have given results that may not and possibly should not be considered. It seems to me that in any experiments re- quiring full perception of color, we would certainly rule out a partially color-blind person. With experiments on odor, it may be necessary to rule out a great many more subjects than we realize at present or we realized in the past. Furthermore, I think that we should not be discouraged because we cannot define the limits of any class of odors that is, it: we set up a class of flowery, and there is not considerable agreement on ex- actly where flowery stops or some other class begins, ! don't think that this means that the classification is not valid at all. I think it was Charles Darwin who first said that the inability to define the limits of a category does not disprove the existence of that category. It seems true of our classifi- cation systems of odor. We may have classes that people generally agree exist, although they may disagree on the exact limits. I have seen too many people agree on the general description of certain odors to believe that it is impossible to work out any classification at all. Of course, they are people who have had some experience in working with odor, recognizing the odor as similar to something else that they have worked with. I believe that we shall have to consider, in further experiments on classifi- cation, the selection of subjects who are fairly well trained in. their ability to perceive odor. CHAIRMAN: Before I call on another mem- ber of the audience, do either of you gentle- men like to comment on Dr. Lauffer's com- ments ? MR. CROC}•ER: I would like to comment on Dr. Lauffer's remarks. It is probably a fact that a large percentage of people have approximately normal sense ofsmell. Select- ing people for your studies is relatively easy. You have as a matter of course, to make sure that you don't draw some blanks, but that wouldn't be particularly difficult. Dr. Barail has, among others, given us some optimism in the belief that a consider- able portion of people have a roughly normal sense of smell I know that Samuel Klein has come to that conclusion and has published results to that effect. Assuming that a large percentage of people have roughly normal capacity for smelling, their ability to inter- pret sensations is something else. That is where psychology comes in very handy. There has to be a good psychologist working with the experimenter in the development of any improved system of odor classification. MR. CHALEYEK: I just want to say that one of the first things that we have to do on odor classification is to agree on odor lan- guage. We have to agree on what is this, and what is that--that is the first thing to do.