REIGHARD ON THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES. 29* 



The most strikinj^- evidence of this decline is afforded by the decay 

 of natural history societies. In this State Detroit and Grand Rapids 

 each formerly snpi)orted such societies. They were well patronized, had 

 rooms of their own, held stated meetinjis, and accumulated collections. 

 The Helroit s(»ciety has long since decayed and its col leri ions have 

 passed into other hands. The people of Grand Kapids ai-e so apathetic 

 that there seems evory reason to fear that they will perniii the col- 

 lections of the Kcmt Gounty society to pass out of the city. 



JNIany similar societies in other parts of the country have had like 

 histories. A number of such are known to me. 



This decline of popular interest has affected not so much tlie theories 

 of natural history as its materials, not so much perhaps ])opuhir interest 

 as popular participation. It has taken place by the side of an un- 

 precedented activity in zoology in the universities and colleges and in 

 the scientific work of the government. 



May we not seek the explanation of it in two directions? First in the 

 liostiiity or apathy of the church. So long as the study of natural 

 history seemed merely to reveal the wonders of creation and to magnify 

 the marvelous work of the creator, the church encouraged it. The 

 evolution idea on the other hand was strongly combatted by the church. 

 "\Miile it is, perhaps, not possible to trace the effect of this controversy 

 on the popular interest in natural history, we may feel sure that a 

 state of mind w^liich looked upon every animal adaptation, as upon every 

 visitation of disease, as an expression of divine wisdom, must have 

 been more sympathetic toward the study of natural history, than one 

 which saw in the animal only a vaguely comprehended end-result of an 

 evolution process, itself subversive of accepted religious beliefs. 



A further reason for the decline in popular interest may be sought 

 in the lack of stimulus from above. The zoologists of the universities 

 and colleges had become mori)hologists. A few of them kept up an 

 interest in systematic zoology, but for the most part they were engaged 

 in the laboratory study of the anatomy and develojnnent of preserved 

 aninmls. Existing animals, the cnfl-results of on evolution process were 

 to be grouped in accordance with their genealogical history. The 

 activities of animals, their habits, habitats, distribution, their rela- 

 tions to their environment, their ecology in short — all these were thought 

 to be of little consequence. Students sent out from the laboratories 

 of these teachers were much more familiar with sections and dissec- 

 tions than with living, or even entire animals. Once removed from 

 the laboratory with its equipment of apparatus such students were 

 quite helpless. 



They experienced in most cases great difficulty in finding again in 

 the field the animals that had served their laboratory studies. These 

 students are the persons from among whom the membershij) in natural 

 history societies is recruited. They are the persons who stimulate, in 

 any community, an interest in natural history studies. These young 

 recruits were then without interest in the study of living animals in 

 th(Mr natural environment, while the people were, as they will likely 

 always be, without interest in the laboratory study of anatomy and 

 develoimient. That which interests the people is not the dead end- 

 product, but the living, active animal, the activities of animals, what 

 they do and why they do it. 



