PRESENT-DAY BIOLOGICAL THOUGHT 63 



the man who could not see the forest for the trees. A 

 wider outlook, it is true, is discernible in the writings of 

 many who are trying to treat the organism as a whole 

 and not as a mere collection of individual and distinct 

 parts. 



Thus, Vernon L. Kellogg^ holds that, no matter how 

 the scientist may look at a thing from a purely physico- 

 mechanical point of view, when he sits back in his chair 

 in his own home and views his wife and children, some- 

 how there is a greater gap between their reactions to him 

 and his to them, than his laboratory findings would lead 

 him to believe. 



Professor Kellogg thus holds with Balzac, that, regard- 

 less of what the laboratory tells us, humanity will never 

 accept the implied ultimate of the alchemist who says to 

 his weeping wife, "Stay, I have decomposed tears. Tears 

 contain a little phosphate of lime, some chloride of soda, 

 some mucus, and some water." Is there nothing more to 

 a tear than this ? Will humanity ever be willing to accept 

 that analysis? In all probability it will not. Unless the 

 findings of the laboratory fit in with the findings of hu- 

 manity as a whole, it will do little good to attempt to 

 force acceptance of them with any degree of finality. 



If, as Wm. E. Ritter says,^ the golden rule has influ- 

 enced the actions of mankind, it is mighty poor science 

 which would neglect it in writing the history of man- 

 kind. It would be like studying the bee and forgetting to 

 mention one or more of the important traits found. And 

 so, T. D. A. Cockerell very recently laid emphasis upon 



