262 THE entomologist's record. 



of inquiry, altliough they equally relate to what the organism does, 

 rather than to what it is, and, therefore, both have equal right to be 

 included in the one gi-eat science of life, or biology, yet lead in 

 directions which are scarcely even parallel. So marked, indeed, is the 

 distinction, that Professor Haeckel some twenty years ago proposed to 

 separate the study of organisms with reference to their place in nature 

 under the designation of ' oecology,' defining it as comprising ' the 

 relations of tlie animal to its organic as well as to its inorganic environ- 

 ment, particularly its friendly or hostile relations to those animals or 

 plants with which it comes into direct contact.' Whether this term 

 expresses it or not, the distinction is a fundamental one. Whether with 

 the cecologist we regard the organism in relation to the world, or with 

 the physiologist as a wonderful complex of vital energies, the two 

 branches have this in common, that both studies fix their attention, not 

 on stuffed animals, butterflies in cases, or even microscopical sections 

 of the animal or plant body — all of which relate to the framework of 

 life — but on life itself." 



The fact pointed out by the President is self-evident, viz., that there 

 axe certain relationships existing between animals and the external 

 world, or as he terms them " external " relations, whilst there are 

 certain relationships existing between the organs of the same organism 

 in reference to each other, i.e., " internal " relations, and that we now 

 have biologists who study particularly the relations of organisms to their 

 external surroundings, whilst others are devoted to the study of the 

 relation of the organs themselves to each other. As regards entomology 

 it is doubtful whether cecologists and physiologists are so sharply 

 differentiated as the doctor's remarks would lead us to suppose ; it seems 

 almost imiDossible that anyone can study the oecological side of ento- 

 mology without, at the same time, studying more or less completely 

 its physiological side; but that in their wider applications the two 

 sides are far enough apart, I think we shall be ready to admit. One 

 other thing we cannot fail to notice, viz., the exclusion from the ranks 

 of biologists proper of the morphologist who confines himself to the 

 study of dried specimens of natural history objects, of the man who 

 simply studies or fixes his attention on " butterflies in cases," and not 

 *' on life itself." 



Dr. Sanderson then goes on to say : " No seriously-minded person, 

 however, doubts that organised nature, as it now ju-esents itself to 

 us, has become what it is by a process of gradual perfecting or 

 advancement, brought about by the elimination of those organisms 

 which failed to obey the fundamental principle of adaptation which 

 Treviranus indicated. Each stej), therefore, in this evolution is 

 a reaction to external influences, the motive of which is essentially the 

 same as that by which from moment to moment the organism governs 

 itself. And the whole process is a necessary outcome of the fact that 

 those organisms are most prosperous which look best after their own 

 welfare. As in that part of biology which deals with the internal 

 relations of the organism, the interest of the individual is in like 

 manner the sole motive by which every energy is guided. We may 

 take what Treviranus called selfish adaptation — Zwechndssigheit fiir 

 sick selber — as a connecting link between the two branches of 

 biological study. Out of this relation springs another, which I need not 

 say was not recognised until after the Darwinian epoch — that, I mean, 



