1922] Defense of the General Biology Course 125 



really an unfinished task, apparently attempts to combine the Hux- 

 leyan unified view of nature with a strong leaning toward the typi- 

 cally German love of multitudinous details in its rather exhaustive 

 treatment of the fern and the earthworm. Continual experimentation 

 in the order or sequence of presentation of types characterizes these 

 many elementary textbooks. 



The earlier, and we believe the better, of these works developed 

 directly out of Huxley's influence and, like that of their master, were 

 based solidly on the idea of comparative general morphology and phys- 

 iology. An example of these, and in our judgment, the best that 

 has ever been written, both from a biological as well as from a literary 

 standpoint, is Jeffrey Parker's "Lessons in Elementary Biology." 

 This book embodies the virtuous realization that the student knows 

 only the types presented which must serve as the tangible and material 

 embodiment of the principles drawn therefrom. 



Unfortunately this fine common sense is nearly absent from many 

 later works in which both author and reader seem to struggle vainly 

 to get feet on solid ground. Many such works embody the results of 

 recent and unconfirmed research, talk much about enzyme action or 

 accessory chromosomes, and give the student the notion that he must 

 reach up and pluck general principles out of thin air. 



Much poor teaching has been done in the name of "General Biol- 

 ogy," and I revoice some of the criticisms of Professor Nichols* of 

 the Yale Sheffield Scientific School, who not long ago published a de- 

 tailed attack upon the value of this type of course. While believing 

 that his views result, in the main, from bias, many of his points are 

 well taken. 



Many courses, printed and unprinted, have been futile primarily 

 because their builders fail to recognize the basic principle of any type 

 course — that the types presented embody the realities from which both 

 wider knowledge must spring and on which principles must rest. If 

 this be true for distinct courses in Zoology and Botany, where subject- 

 matter is more limited, it is much more the case in General Biology 

 where the student's thinking may range over a wider field. 



In our view the essential principle of a course in General Biology 

 is that it be a series of elementary lessons upon a logically arranged 

 series of suggestive type forms. The course should be conducted by 

 a broadly-trained biologist with a view to developing in the student 



* Nichols, G. E., Science, Dec. 5, 1919. 



