IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 103 



sj-lvania, etc. , who can do good work if they are put to investigating the enabry- 

 ology of a single species, or writing a thesis on the histology of certain 

 organs. But we have great difficulty in finding men who are able to take 

 hold of a collection brought in by some dredging expedition, for instance, 

 and identifying and describing the specimens in a satifactory manner." 



Dr. David Starr Jordan, now of Leland Stanford, Jr., University, pro- 

 tested earnestly, in a public address against what he termed the '• German 

 craze for morphology," which occupied the attention of biologists almost to 

 the exclusion of much important systematic work which was being neg- 

 lected. 



Theodore Eimer, in his "Organic Evolution," says: "The tendency of 

 the 'Scientific Zoology' of to-day is to neglect the study of entire animals. 

 Anything that is not teezed with the needle, or cut with the microtome or 

 examined with the microscope, is scarcely noticed at the pi'esent day, except 

 by those who are exclusively systematists — even in questions connected with 

 the evolution theory. For, strange to say, even the doctrine of evolution is 

 left entirely, in Germany, to the decision of anatomy and embryology; that 

 is, of the microscope, or else is given up to mere speculation, although Dar- 

 win himself used neither the former nor the latter, but external form, the 

 life and the distribution of plants and animals^ for his theory." 



Far be it from me to belittle in the slightest degree the woi'k of the mor- 

 phologist. Upon the result of his labors must be reared the whole struc- 

 ture of the systematic zoologist. His work is not only important, but it is 

 vital to any correct solving of the maze of questions which the systematist 

 attempts to unravel. Upon the faithful and minute researches of the anato- 

 mist, the histologist, and above all, the embryologist, the success or failure 

 of the systematist depends. As the foundation is to the building, so is mor- 

 phology to Systematic Zoology. 



But after fully and candidly admitting our great obligation to those who 

 work with the dissecting needle, the microtome and the microscope, is there 

 not still some justification for the complaints of such men as Rathburn, 

 Jordan, Eimer and Cope? Is it not true that our largest and best institu- 

 tions allow the "German craze for morphology" to monopolize the grountl 

 to the detriment of systematic work? Is there not a tendency to convey the 

 impression to the student that there is little to be gained by "studying the 

 entire animal," and that the specimen must be cut up before any observa- 

 tions of value can be made? 



For my part, I think the men whom I have quoted have pointed out a real 

 danger, which should be forced upon the attention of biologists, especially 

 those engaged in educational work. 



This state of affairs has come about in a perfectly natural waj*. The inven- 

 tion of the microscope and the perfection of methods in histological and 

 einbryological investigations, have literally opened a new world to the sci- 

 entist, and the usual result of opening a new territory has ensued — a 

 universal rush to occupy every available spot in the land of promise and the 

 abandoning of equally valuable and important fields already under cultiva- 

 tion. But now that the rush is over, and the new territory fairlv well occu- 

 pied by eager and zealous workers, it may not be amiss to ask ourselves 

 whether the old farms "back east" are not worth our attention, especially 

 as we can now undertake the work enormously enriched by the wealth of 



