Ramalcy • The Growth of a Science 



25 



all too simple statement that "plants 

 and animals adapt themselves to their 

 surroundings," that beavers put on a 

 thick coat of fur against approaching 

 winter, or that a tree sheds its leaves 

 in autumn to keep from having them 

 frozen, and that peach blossoms burst 

 forth in beauty to attract bees to carry 

 pollen. The kindergarten child is de- 

 lighted to hear how "the dear little 

 bean plant" pushes its roots downward 

 into the soil to get the "life-giving 

 water" or sends its stem upward for 

 "heaven's sunlight," As a matter of 

 fact, if beans are sprouted in an ink- 

 black closet the stems grow straight 

 upward, although there is no light 

 above, and the roots grow down even 

 if the soil below is as dry as chalk dust. 

 It is easy, even for the trained ecologist, 

 to lapse into anthropomorphisms, as I 

 have seen in manuscripts submitted to 

 me as editor of a journal devoted to 

 ecology. Thus an author writes of the 

 Douglas fir as a "virile" and "aggres- 

 sive" species, or relates that roses "pre- 

 fer" a sunny situation or "rejoice" in 

 plentiful sunshine; or he ascribes to 

 animals a foresight which would do 

 credit to a "seventh son of a seventh 

 son"— or is it a daughter? 



Ecology as a separate branch of 

 biology arose in the eighteen-nineties, 

 and I have seen its growth from the 

 rather simple "natural histor\'" of two 

 generations ago to its present expanded 

 state wherein the ecologist, who is an 

 outdoor man, may have comparatively 

 little in common with his biological 

 colleague of the laborator)', and may 

 even speak a different language from 

 that of his brother ecologist who works 

 in some other field than his own. 



It is plain that the discipline which 

 treats of the relation of organisms to 

 their environment must be the very 

 foundation of agriculture and stock- 

 raising; and so it is for horticulture, 

 forestry, grazing, and soil conservation. 

 Tlie disciple of ecology looks to both 



the past and to the future. What were 

 the environmental conditions which 

 brought about the formation of coal, 

 or of oil? Why did dinosaurs become 

 extinct? What has caused the develop- 

 ment of oak woods in Britain where 

 alders and willows grew in the Stone 

 Age? What sort of forest will there be 

 in Oregon when the Forest Service shall 

 have prevented fires for two hundred 

 years? What will become of waterfowl 

 if we continue to destroy their breed- 

 ing grounds by drainage of swamps and 

 bayous? If the war on coyotes and 

 snakes and birds of prey continues shall 

 we have to live in a rodent-dominated 

 world? 



*««*## 



WTiile it is true that ecology as a 

 science arose near the close of the last 

 century, there have always been a few 

 naturalists interested to some degree 

 in environmental relations. The philos- 

 opher Theophrastus, long-time friend 

 and associate of Aristotle, may well be 

 called the first ecologist in histon', for 

 he wrote, and quite sensibly too, of the 

 communities in which plants are as- 

 sociated, the relation of plants to each 

 other and to their lifeless environment. 

 He recognized the features of water 

 plants, plants of swamps and marshes, 

 plants of dv)^ and arid plains. Some- 

 times, but not often he falls into mild 

 anthropomorphisms, as in a statement 

 in his Inquiry into Plants: 



All trees grow fairer and more \igor- 

 ous in their proper positions, . . . some 

 love wet and marshy ground, ... as 

 the white poplar and willow, . . . some 

 love exposed and sunny positions, some 

 prefer a shady place. 



Aristotle, who was more zoologist 

 than botanist, hardly takes a place in 

 ecology, although he did studv the 

 habits of animals to some extent. Ani- 

 mals are less influenced by circum- 



