1907.] Wheeler, The Polymorphism of Ants. 83 



biological inquiry. Adaptation, conceived as a phylogenetic process, and 

 its ontogenetic counterpart, accommodation or regulation, are not only the 

 central problems of all biology, but they constitute the proper field of ethol- 

 ogy.^ Emery ,^ and Waxweiler regard ethology as at bottom merely external 

 physiology. The former defines it as treating of "the ensemble of phenom- 

 ena whose physiological analysis has not yet been accomplished and is not 

 even possible at the present time." This implies that when the analysis has 

 been accomplished, ethology will be merged into physiology. Such a view 

 is in my opinion open to discussion, since ethology also embraces the be- 

 havior, i. e., the instinctive and intelligent actions by means of which organ- 

 isms adapt or accommodate themselves to their environment and must be 

 to that extent psychological. Hence there is opportunity for considerable 

 difference of opinion in regard to the ultimate fate of ethology. Authors who 

 believe that psychology will resolve itself into physiology will agree with 

 Emery, whereas those who believe that biology will become increasingly 

 psychological and metaphysical — and the number of these seems to be 

 increasing — will predict that ethology will ally itself more closely with the 

 mental sciences. 



This dual possibility depends, of course, on two ways of envisaging the 

 problem of adaptation. Those who view it from the physical {i. e., mechan- 

 ical), antiteleological and Neodarwinian standpoint, repudiate any attempt 

 to substitute psychological terms in biological explanation, and assign as 

 their reason for this course the existence of a psycho-physical parallelism. 

 On the other hand, those who view the problem from the vitalistic, teleo- 

 logical and Lamarckian standpoint, turn to psychical manifestations like 

 the will, with Avhich we as acting subjects are perfectly familiar, as yielding 

 a more adequate and satisfying insight into the phenomena. These dif- 

 ferent standpoints have been recently presented in violent contrast to each 

 other in two works on adaptation by Detto^ and Pauly.* 



At first sight it may be difficult to understand why allusion should be 

 made to these abstruse and very general matters in the discussion of a special 

 subject like polymorphism. Reflection shows, however, that the social 

 insects make a consideration of these matters necessary, since these organ- 



1 An excellent discussion of the scope and problems of this science has been recently pub- 

 lished by Waxweiler (Esqiiisse d'une SocioloKie. lor. cit., p. 29 ct S''q.). He lias shown that Is. 

 Geoflfroy Saint Hilaire, in 18.54, first introduced the term 'ethology' for the subject which H»ckel 

 in 1866 "designated as ' oecologv ' in his ' (lenerelle Morphologic.' The term ' bionomics ' employed 

 by Lankester, Baldwin, Gulick and others, is of course, of still more recent date. 'Ethology' 

 therefore, not onlv has priority, but it is al.so more ai)t than the other terms that haye been 

 suggested. It will probably come into general use among Eiighsh and American zoologists, 

 now that it has been adopted in such works as the 'Zoological Record.' 



2 Ethologie, Plnioggnie et Classification. Comptes Keiidus du 6 Congrf-s internat. Zool., 

 Berne, 1904. 



3 Die Theorie der directen Anpassung imd ihre Bedeutung fUr das Anpa.ssungs-imd Descen- 

 denzproblem. Jena, Gustay I'^isclier, 1904. 



* Darwinismus und Lamarckisnuis, loc. cit. 



