162 EEPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



when tliey are propped up by the strong pillars of authority. The dif- 

 ferent changes in the development of science follow entirely different 

 methods, and the investigations of the period immediately preceding 

 ours, devoted more to special branches, have doubtless, through their 

 results, furnished a very necessary basis for the more many-sided tenden- 

 cies of our present science. 



5. Only through long periods of time the human race can gradually 

 reach a higher and more complete knowledge. Tlie history of sciences 

 shows in every branch of knowledge an exceedingly slow development, 

 quicker at times, but at other times slow, stationary, and even retro- 

 grading. Even the gaps in the historical material, or the just as com- 

 mon and easily-explained custom of directing attention from the less 

 important to the most important representatives of scientific develop- 

 ment, lead a less experienced and thoughtful man to entirely different 

 points than those in question. It is therefore best, as a general rule, 

 not to look for too much '' that is new in science" in an author who has 

 in his special line of scientitic investigation been preceded by many and 

 prominent writers who have used all the old material, and who, having 

 solved those prol^lems which were of easy solution, have left the most 

 difl&cult questions unanswered.^^ But even of the most unassuming 

 author we may demand that he shall treat his subject from the present 

 scientific point of view. 



6. A remarkable misconception of the aim of scientific work, which 

 even in our time is not altogether rare, is the idea that the object of the 

 naturalist consists chiefly in increasing the scientific material by makpg 

 rich collections of objects and observations, by describing everything 

 arS miuutelj^ as possible, and by combining all the facts to a whole, which 

 is then occasionally termed in a somewhat contemptuous manner '' a 

 compilation." A higher \iew of science must, however, disapprove of 

 such a lowering of that most important kind of scientific work, which is far 

 diiferent from mere compilation, which only aims at arranging the works 

 of several authors systematically in one work. In saying this I do not 

 mean to deny the value or necessity of scientific collections or compila- 

 tions, but merely to raise a faint protest against those who overestimate 

 these compilations and undervalue combined scientific activity. Science 

 doubtless needs as complete and as critically sifted material as possible, 

 but this material in itself is not yet science. The object of the natu- 

 ralist, therefore, does not only consist in the constant accumulating of 

 observations in order to reveal hitherto unknown facts or to corroborate 

 known facts, but in combining the material gathered by himself and 



^* If we therefore go over the -works of older authors on this subject iu chronological 

 order, we soon find that their views only very gradually become clearer and more dis- 

 tinct, and that the more critically sifted and arranged axioms which we intend to 

 give we by no means owe altogether to our predecessors. Only by joining the various 

 facts and arranging them systematically they become important, and not least by 

 thereby showing their insufficient character if viewed from a truly scientific point of 

 view. 



