76 So7ne Relationships of Economic Biology 



things and in their nutritive and reproductive functions, to be guided 

 by his knowledge as to what he might use and how he should mate. 

 Poetic faculty led him "to project himself into nature" in search of an 

 explanation of the causes of things. While still a hunter he was guided 

 by experience to devise codes regulating the breeding and selection of 

 his own kind. Later, as a herdsman, he extended his interest to include 

 animal-nutrition and animal-breeding. Later still, as a tiller of the soil, 

 this interest embraced plant-nutrition and plant-selection. 



When poetic intuition was replaced by divine inspiration, practical 

 expedient yielded to priestly ordinance. The interest in breeding and 

 selection, cankered at the root by Essene doctrine, found an imperfect 

 outlet in "domestication."' 



Two hundred years ago the subject of plant-nutrition was taken in 

 hand by philosophy. But the study was referred to "statics" and the 

 opportunity was not improved. A century later, the study was resumed, 

 but its improvement was again postponed in deference to the inteihgible 

 respect entertained by husbandry for chemistry. It was not till some 

 half a century ago that the philosophical investigation of plant-nutrition 

 at last came into its kingdom. 



The earliest attempt at the philosophical study of reproductive- 

 function was practically contemporaneous with this third happy effort 

 to treat nutritive-function on philosophical lines. But Genetic study 

 was then less fortunate than its cognate and its results were overlooked 

 by Academic Science. 



Within our generation that study has been energetically resumed. 

 Imbued throughout with the Natural History spirit, it has placed 

 practical animal-breeding on a philosophical basis and has made economic 

 plant-breeding a possibihty. The immediate value of the results to 

 Economic Biology and their potential consequence to Moral Philosophy 

 are already fully understood. 



I must apologise for having dwelt at such length on facts that are 

 famihar and relationships that are well appreciated. We Economic 

 Biologists are, we know, but a feeble folk, "hewers of wood and drawers 

 of water" to some of the "sciences" and many of the "arts." But this 

 very circumstance makes us "citizens of no mean city" and it may not 

 be wholly amiss, when taking counsel together, to remind ourselves, 

 sometimes, of the fact. 



