492 



THE AMEBIC AN MUSEUM JOURNAL 



mals were repelled, and even driven from 

 this field of activity, some temporarily and 

 others permanently, by the narrowness of 

 their leaders and instructors. Almost every 

 teacher interested in the natural history side 

 of zoology can recall such examples. It has 

 been this same sort of spirit which has made 

 many professional naturalists view with dis- 

 favor or contempt the activities and inter- 

 ests of amateurs. For this reason, interest 

 in the study of live animals is felt by many 

 persons who are out of touch with natural- 

 ists, although in a large number of cases 

 there would be mutual benefit and respect, 

 if points of contact and sympathy were 

 established. Animals are a factor in a large 

 number of our outdoor sports, among whose 

 devotees there are many men wlio take a very 

 sane and intelligent interest in fish, game, 

 and bird life, but usually these persons get 

 little benefit from the professional natural- 

 ist. Each goes his way independently, to 

 the disadvantage of both; the professional 

 ignoring the valuable results of the ama- 

 teur, and the amateur unaware of the results 

 of the professional. 



In a democracy, where we look upon sci- 

 ence as a tool to aid us in securing better 

 human living in the broadest and best sense 

 and not simply as a toy for a leisure class, 

 it is o])Iigatory that there should be wide- 

 spread benefit from animals, if we are to 

 expect intelligent public opinion to support 

 the study of natural history as it deserves. 

 It is coming to be recognized that there has 

 been serious negligence on the part of many 

 leading zoologists in supporting the various 

 activities intended to conserve fish, game, 

 birds, and other wild animals. As a result 

 there has been a tendency to allow this kind 

 of work to fall into the hands of persons 

 whose enthusiasm for protection, or sel- 

 fish love of sport, is not always balanced by 

 a sane and expert knowledge of live animals. 

 Naturally grave errors have been made, and 

 will continue to be made until additional 

 leaders of the right kind are secured, and 

 until naturalists come to realize that the ap- 

 plication of ecology to these problems is the 

 only safe basis for action. 



Advantages of the New 



There is now coming into control of zoolog- 

 ical interests a new generation which has 

 been trained, not only in all of the older 



established methods, but also in the newest, 

 bringing into modern natural history from 

 every direction the training, methods, facts, 

 and ideals of diverse fields. As previously 

 stated, the older natural history was devoted 

 mainly to the study of life histories and 

 habits, but the more recent work not only 

 has continued this excellent feature, but in 

 addition has supplemented it by the best 

 laboratory methods. The new natural his- 

 tory, therefore, is working on a higher level, 

 with a broader outlook, and has a saner and 

 closer contact with nature than was possible 

 by either the laboratory or the older field 

 method alone. It takes the laboratory 

 problems into the field and brings the field 

 problems into the laboratoiy as never before. 

 This newer natural history of animals is now 

 usually defined as the study of the relation 

 (causal) of the animal to its complete en- 

 vironment. It is to the activities, or re- 

 sponses to the environment (including plants 

 and animals), that primary attention is 

 given. All kinds of facts which throw light 

 upon what animals do are thus recognized 

 as of ecological value. In the comprehen- 

 siveness of ecology lies its strength — and 

 its weakness, in the opinion of some. To 

 some minds it is too general, indefinite, and 

 hazy. It includes so much, that some are 

 confused and discouraged. To others, who de- 

 light in the outdoor study of animals, who 

 desire a broad comprehensive outlook, who de- 

 mand room for imaginative play, and who 

 will not allow arbitrary boundaries of their 

 field to interfere when they seek an explana- 

 tion of animal activities, the new ecology is 

 very inviting and its pursuit fascinating. 



We have now sketched in the background 

 for the new natural history. It is generally 

 venturesome to call anything new, because 

 again and again history has compelled us to 

 revise our opinions on this point. It seems 

 safe, however, to say that ecology is new 

 not only in its recent clear-cut conception 

 of its field and in its multiple method of 

 attack, but also in the kind of facts and 

 ideas discovered by the newer methods. 

 Progress takes place by the discovery of new 

 facts and new ideas, and of the two, new 

 ideas are the more difficult to get. Ideas 

 give new points of view, lead to the re- 

 organization of the old, and stimulate the 

 discovery of many new facts. It is not 

 sufficient, therefore, that the public should 

 know ecological facts only; it must have a 



