SECTION I. THE HISTORY OF ECOLOGY 



2. ECOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND GROWTH BEFORE 1900 



Carnap (1938) recognized "physics" as a 

 common name for the nonbiological field of 

 science and stated that "the whole of the 

 rest of science may be called biology (in 

 the large sense)." He immediately saw the 

 necessity of dividing this wider biology into 

 two fields, the first of which contains "most 

 of what is usually called biology, namely, 

 general biology, botany, and the greater 

 part of zoology." The second part "deals 

 with the behavior of individual organisms 

 and groups of organisms \vithin the en- 

 vironment; with the dispositions to such 

 behavior, with such features of processes 

 in organisms as are relevant to the behavior, 

 and with certain features of the environ- 

 ment which are characteristic of and 

 relevant to the behavior, e.g., objects ob- 

 served and work done by organisms." 



Carnap proceeds to discuss the distinc- 

 tions between the two phases of biology 

 primarily from the point of view of human 

 relations and suggests, among other things, 

 that the second phase might be made up by 

 "selecting the processes in an organism from 

 the point of view of their relevance to 

 achievements in the environment . . . ." 

 He continues by saying that "there is no 

 name in common use for this second field. 

 . . . The term 'behavioristics' has been 

 proposed. If it is used, it must be made 

 clear that the word 'behavior' has here a 

 greater extension than it had with the ear- 

 lier behaviorists. Here it is intended to 

 designate not only the overt behavior which 

 can be assayed from outside but also inter- 

 nal behavior (i.e., processes within the 

 organism); further, dispositions to behavior 

 which may not be manifested in a special 

 case; and finally, certain effects upon the 

 environment." 



Carnap distinguishes between such rela- 

 tions of individual organisms and groups of 

 organisms and adds that "it seems doubt- 



13 



ful whether any shaip fine can be drawn 

 between these two parts." He also states 

 that such considerations extend to non- 

 human animals as well as to men. 



Thus, late in the 1930's, a philosopher of 

 high attainments compounded logical neces- 

 sity with ignorance of the history and pres- 

 ent development of biological ideas, and 

 announced as new the discovery of the field 

 of "bionomics," "ethology," "ecology," or 

 "relations physiology." This happened at 

 the University of Chicago, where research 

 and teaching concerning the relations be- 

 tween organisms and their environments 

 had been an active feature of the biological 

 program since the late 1890's. The iong, 

 respectable history of this phase of biology 

 forms the subject matter of the present sec- 

 tion. Camap's statement is a valuable 

 introduction to this history, since it demon- 

 strates anew that ecology fills a natural 

 niche in biological science. It also gives 

 warning of the lack of general knowledge 

 among scholars as to the mass of informa- 

 tion in this field. 



Near the turn of the present century, 

 W. K. Brooks, founder of the great Johns 

 Hopkins tradition in biology, expressed 

 much the same need for an understanding 

 of the environmental relations of organisms 

 as that given by Carnap. He stated: "To 

 study life we must consider three things: 

 first, the orderly sequence of externa] 

 nature; second, the living organism and 

 the changes which take place in it; and 

 third, that continuous adjustment between 

 the two sets of phenomena which con- 

 stitutes life. The physical sciences deal 

 with the external world, and in the lab- 

 oratory we study the structure and 

 activities of organisms by very similar 

 methods; but if we stop there, neglecting 

 the relation of the living being to its en- 

 vironment, our study is not biology or the 



