ON THE STUDY OF BIOLOGY. 531 



purpose; that, in fact, the Greek word " bios " had relation only to 

 human life and human affairs, and that a different word was employed 

 when they wished to speak of the life of animals and plants. So Dr. 

 Field tells us we are all wrong in using the term biology, and that we 

 ouo-ht to employ another only, unluckily, he is not quite sure about 

 the propriety of that which he proposes as a substitute. It is a some- 

 what hard one zootocology. I am sorry we are wrong, because 

 we are likely to continue so. In these matters we must have 

 some sort of " statute of limitations." When a name has been em- 

 ployed for half a century, persons of authority ' have been using it, 

 and its sense has become well understood, I am afraid that people 

 will go on using it, whatever the weight of philological objection. 



Now that we have arrived at the origin of this word " biology," 

 the next point to consider is, What ground does it cover? I have said 

 that in its strict technical sense it covers all the phenomena that are 

 exhibited by living things, as distinguished from those which are not 

 living ; but while that is all very well so long as we confine ourselves 

 to the lower animals and to plants, it lands us in a very considerable 

 difficulty when we reach the higher forms of living things. For, what- 

 ever view we may entertain about the nature of man, one thing is per- 

 fectly certain, that he is a living creature. Hence, if our definition is to 

 be interpreted strictly, we must include man and all his ways and works 

 under the head of biology ; in which case we should find that psy- 

 chology, politics, and political economy, would all be absorbed into 

 the province of biology. In fact, civil history would be merged in 

 natural history. In strict logic it may be hard to object to this 

 course, because no one can doubt that the rudiments and outlines of 

 our own mental phenomena are traceable among the lower animals. 

 They have their economy and their polity ; and if, as is always ad- 

 mitted, the polity of bees and the commonwealth of wolves fall within 

 the purview of the biologist proper, it becomes hard to say why we 

 should not include therein human affairs, which in so many cases re- 

 semble those of bees in zealous getting, and are not without a certain 

 parity in the proceedings of wolves. The real fact is, that we biolo- 

 gists are a self-sacrificing people ; and inasmuch as, on a moderate 

 estimate, there are about a quarter of a million different species of 

 animals and plants to know about already, we feel that we have 

 more than sufficient territory. There has been a sort of practical con- 

 vention by which we give up to a different branch of science what 

 Bacon and Hobbes would have called " civil history." That branch 

 of science has constituted itself under the head of sociology. I may 

 use phraseology which at present will be well understood, and say 

 that we have allowed that province of biology to become autono- 



1 " The term biology, which means exactly what we wish to express, the science of 

 life, has often been used and has of late become not uncommon among good writers." 

 Whewell, "Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences," vol. i., p. 544 (edition of 184*7). 



