NOTES 671 



in these branches of science that I could never bring myself to touch parasitology 

 again. This has, I know, been the feeling of others also. In my opinion it is the 

 duty of learned societies to take vigorous action against any taint of such dis- 

 honesty — as the Royal Society did in the case of Newton and Leibnitz. Conversely 

 it is disgraceful that a society like that of the Lincei should allow such thefts to be 

 perpetrated under its cegis ; and, I consider, the Royal Society was far from blame- 

 less in the Calandruccio-Grassi affair. Learned societies are, however, extremely 

 timid, and seldom have the courage to stand up against any abuse, however 

 flagrant. It is a pity that a science of such importance as parasitology should so 

 often be done in what may be called the Grub Street of Science. 



The First of the Protozoologists (Sir R. Ross) 



When a man leaves the Royal Society (which is seldom left except in one way), 

 he is generally dismissed with a biography ; and the writers of these biographies 

 must often find the task difficult. In the biography of the late E. A. Minchin, 

 Professor of Protozoology of the University of London, he is called by the writer 

 (a zoologist) " the first of the protozoologists of his time." Unfortunately the same 

 claim was made for the late F. Schaudinn — another case of war between England 

 and Germany. As there were only two professional zoological protozoologists, one 

 claim must be right and the other wrong. I believe that I was the first to suggest 

 the word protozoology in 1898 when I sent a paper on my researches on malaria 

 containing the word to a zoological publication. Unfortunately the editor refused 

 the paper because he could not find the word in a dictionary, and because I did 

 not insert the zoological names of the mosquitoes which I had experimented with, 

 the names not being then ascertainable in India — while I am a mere doctor. 

 But, letting that pass, it is curious what a divergence there often is between pro- 

 fessional science and creative science. Protozoology is of great importance to the 

 human race because it deals with certain minute parasitic animals which cause 

 some of the most widespread and devastating diseases of humanity; and the 

 truth is that nearly all the great work on this subject has been done, not by pro- 

 fessional zoologists, but by doctors. We owe to a French doctor, Dr. Laveran, 

 the discovery of the very important parasites which cause malaria, and to Sir 

 David Bruce many invaluable researches on the dangerous organisms called 

 trypanosomes ; and my work on malaria has just been mentioned. It was really 

 these investigations which established protozoology, just as the work of doctors 

 established bacteriology. Nevertheless the protozoologists have tried to claim the 

 chief credit regarding protozoology just as the botanists tried to claim the chief 

 credit regarding bacteriology. 



Minchin was appointed to his Chair by a Committee consisting chiefly of 

 zoologists, and was selected in preference to workers who had really created the 

 subject — a sort of thing often occurring in England. The successful candidate 

 had really done little of importance in the line except translate certain zoological 

 papers ; and his subsequent work was laborious, but can scarcely be called any- 

 thing more than good, and an Irishman might even describe it as the extreme of 

 mediocrity. Schaudinn, also, owes the high claim made for him to the fact that 

 he was a zoologist and not a doctor ; and he was hailed all over the world as the 

 creator of protozoology on the strength of a fantastic and utterly unproven theory 

 that different kinds of parasites are able to develop from each other — a hypothesis 

 which the zoologists swallowed with open mouths as a great discovery. Here 

 again, with our characteristic generosity, when a well-paid chair dealing with such 



