14 HEDGPETH 



Some forty years ago William Emerson Ritter, founder of Scripps 

 Institution of Oceanography, deplored the idea that systematic biology 

 had nothing further to contribute to science, and discussed "the mon- 

 strousness of the fallacy into which biologists have fallen in conceiving 

 taxonomy as an outgrown stage of biology," and, further, "somethmg 

 of the wretched consequences that have resulted from the fall." (Ritter, 

 1916). To be sure, Ritter was primarily concerned with the implica- 

 tions of this attitude for biological theory and the interpretation of 

 Nietzsche (who was taken more seriously in those days than now), 

 rather than its effect on the work of hydrobiological institutions; but 

 much of what he had to say then is still valid today: "The sooner it 

 is borne in upon the minds of all students of living beings, no matter 

 with what aspects of such beings they may be occupied, that they are 

 engaged in the great task of describing and classifying the living world ; 

 and, so far as 'pure biology' is concerned, are doing nothing else, the 

 sooner will objective biology get itself set off from subjective biology 

 and the sooner will philosophical biology become purged of the morbific 

 growths which now impair its health and mar its beauty." {op. cit., 

 p. 464). 



Today the attitude towards systematic biology is perhaps not as 

 antagonistic, and in some hydrobiological institutions takes the form 

 of saying that while systematic biology (or taxonomy — which many con- 

 fuse with the legalistic aspects of nomenclature per se) is a fine and 

 necessary aspect of science, it is best practiced by someone else, elsewhere, 

 preferably in a museum. In other words, "Let George do it." Such an 

 attitude is in some ways more harmful than the notion that systematic 

 biology is now a closed chapter in the history of science. Surely no one 

 would have been as prompt to reject this attitude as Ritter, and indeed 

 significant systematic work is still going on at the institution he founded. 

 Nevertheless, it is also true that systematists are not given posts in 

 hydrobiological institutions by virtue of their being systematists alone 

 nor are students admitted on the understanding that they are to devote 

 their time to systematic problems. With the accent on dynamic inter- 

 pretations of "parameters" and Chlorella nurseries, the fact that a 

 student or researcher is interested in systematic problems is considered^ 

 of secondary interest, and the unfortunate systematist who applies for 

 a post as such is told, in effect, to go, get himself hence to a museum. 

 (This is not, however, intended to imply that the giver of such advice 

 shares Hamlet's altruistic motives.) 



Even if there were enough museums and enough curatorial posts 



