EDITORIAL. 



The comparative method is one of the distinguishing char- 

 acteristics of modern science. Nowhere has it been more fruit- 

 ful in its appHcation than in the natural sciences, which assume 

 the unity of nature. Comparison here means that in the midst 

 of the detailed analysis to which science subjects natural phe- 

 nomena there is an accompanying synthesis. Things, to be 

 compared, must be at once different and yet related. The aim 

 of the comparison is to state more comprehensively the relations 

 as well as to define more accurately the differences. But it is in 

 the biological sciences that the comparative method becomes 

 conspicuously serviceable, since here the doctrine of evolution 

 has come in to reinforce the idea of nature as a unity or system. 

 Here unity means continuity, function becomes significant only 

 through genesis, physiology through morphology, and homol- 

 ogy gives to comparison a meaning it never could have had so 

 long as it expressed simply superficial resemblance. But a still 

 further step is implied in the comparative method, a step which 

 is best represented in what have been called the hyphen 

 sciences such as astro-physics, physical-chemistry, psycho-phys- 

 ics, physiological-psychology. Without prejudging a movement 

 which is still in its infancy, it may be said that the significance 

 of this tendency is likewise toward an organic interaction be- 

 tween the various sciences, an interaction which promises to be 

 most fruitful and, in the present period of scientific specializa- 

 tion, is greatly needed. It is one aim of this Journal to con- 

 tribute to this development of the comparative method by bring- 

 ing together researches which, both from the structural and the 

 functional sides, will show what is meant by the evolution of 

 action. 



* 



