X ON THE STUDY OF BIOLOGY 2G9 



things^, whether they be animals or whether they 

 be plants. Some little time ago — in the course of 

 this year, I think — I was favoured by a learned 

 classic. Dr. Field of Norwich, with a disquisition, 

 in which he endeavoured to prove that, from a 

 philological point of view, neither Treviranus nor 

 Lamarck had any right to coin this new word 

 " Biology " for their purpose; that, in fact, the 

 Greek word " Bios " had relation oniv to human 

 life and human affairs, and that a different word 

 was employed by the Greeks w^hen they wished to 

 speak of the life of animals and plants. So Dr, 

 Field tells us we are all wrong in using the term 

 biolog}", and that we ought to employ another; 

 only he is not 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 

 employed for half a century, persons of authority * 

 have been using it, and its sense has become well 

 understood, I am afraid people will go on using it, 

 Avhatever the weight of philological objection. 



Now that we have arrived at the origin of this 

 word "Biology," the next point to consider is: 



* " 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 crood writers," — 

 Whewell, Pliilosophij of the Inductive Sciences, vol. i. p. 

 544 (edition of 1847). 



