30 PEOOBBDINGS OF THE 



In certain fields of scientific activity deduction and obser- 

 vation lend themselves readily to verification by controlled 

 experiment ; in others, like the greater part of our pursuits, 

 verification can only be obtained by repeated and prolonged 

 observation. Philosophical students who may use experiment 

 enjoy advantages denied to those who are debarred from its 

 employment. The task of the latter is slower and harder. 

 This has led to the subdivision of philosophical studies according 

 to method. In one category are grouped studies like pathology, 

 physics, physiology^ and others to which experimental research 

 is applicable. In the second are placed studies like pure mathe- 

 matics, astronomy and others which aim merely at describing, 

 cataloguing, and systematizing. The examples and the quali- 

 fication cited are not ours ; they are taken from an official account 

 of the terms of a recent scientific bequest. 



This subdivision is clearly convenient. Some philosophical 

 students are attracted by work which promises early realization ; 

 others, from accident or predilection, are led to devote themselves 

 to labours more prolonged. 



The classification, however, is artificial. It places studies like 

 pathology and astronomy in different categories, though the 

 weapons used be forged in the same armoury. The physicist 

 describes, catalogues and systematizes the elements, detects a 

 definite law in their relationships, and indicates a gap in the series. 

 The chemist looks for, and discovers the adumbrated element. 

 The pure matlieuiatician, in calculating the orbit of a celestial 

 body, obtains results suggesting the existence of an unknown 

 planet, which the astronomer looks for and finds. 



Our ])ursuits involve descri])tion and systematization, and 

 therefore place us in the honourable company of the mathe- 

 matician and the astronomer. The work of our Fellows has 

 thrown light on the origin of species and the occurrence of these 

 in time and in space. Even if the fields of study may not be 

 comparable, these advances in knowledge bear comparison with 

 those of the physicist as to the evolution of matter. If our units 

 be frankly subjective in their delimitation, where those of the 

 physicist are objective, this only makes our task the more 

 difficult. The physicist advances proof of the genesis of one 

 element out of another; the natural historian proof of the 

 evolution of one species out of another. Both find reason to 

 believe that the two processes are going on around us. But 

 the ])hy8icist cannot induce the expulsions of a-particles and 

 /5-particles from the atoms of his elements, that are necessary 

 for their transmutation into new elements. The natural historian 

 cannot control the accession or elision of the factors of his species, 

 that are necessary for their transformation into new species. 

 When the physicist can transmute the elements, when the natural 

 historian can originate species, their actiA'ities will have passed 

 from the field of scientific research into that of industrial 

 enterprise. AVhat interests us now, however, is that even in 



