Before 1900, several other books on mechanisms had been published, and all followed one or another of the patterns of their predecessors. Professors Woods and Stahl, at the Universities of Illinois and Purdue, respectively, who published their _Elementary Mechanism_ in 1885, said in their preface what has been said by many other American authors and what should have been said by many more. "We make little claim to originality of the subject-matter," wrote Woods and Stahl, "free use having been made of all available matter on the subject.... Our claim to consideration is based almost entirely on the manner in which the subject has been presented." Not content with this disclaimer, they continued: "There is, in fact, very little room for such originality, the ground having been almost completely covered by previous writers."[113] [Footnote 113: Arthur T. Woods and Albert W. Stahl, _Elementary Mechanism_, New York, 1885.] The similarity and aridity of kinematics textbooks in this country from around 1910 are most striking. The generation of textbook writers following MacCord, Woods and Stahl, Barr of Cornell, Robinson of Ohio State, and Schwamb and Merrill managed to squeeze out any remaining juice in the subject, and the dessication and sterilization of textbooks was nearly complete when my generation used them in the 1930's. Kinematics was then, in more than one school, very nearly as it was characterized by an observer in 1942--"on an intellectual par with mechanical drafting."[114] I can recall my own naïve belief that a textbook contained all that was known of the subject; and I was not disabused of my belief by my own textbook or by my teacher. I think I detect in several recent books a fresh, less final, and less tidy treatment of the kinematics of mechanisms, but I would yet recommend that anyone who thinks of writing a textbook take time to review, carefully and at first hand, not only the desk copies of books that he has accumulated but a score or more of earlier works, covering the last century at least. Such a study should result in a better appreciation of what constitutes a contribution to knowledge and what constitutes merely the ringing of another change. [Footnote 114: _Mechanical Engineering_, October 1942, vol. 64, p. 745.] The author of the contentious article that appeared in _Mechanical Engineering_ in 1942 under the title "What is Wrong with Kinematics and Mechanisms?" made several pronouncements that were questioned by various readers, but his remarks on the meagerness of the college courses of kinematics and the "curious fact" that the textbooks "are all strangely similar in their incompleteness" went unchallenged and were, in fact, quite timely.[115] [Footnote 115: De Jonge, _op. cit._ (footnote 78).]