220 



NA TURE 



\Jan. 1 1, 1877 



whom I refer were the eminent physiologist Bichat, the 

 great naturalist Lamarck, in France ; and a distinguished 

 German, Treviranus. Bichat ^ assumed the existence of a 

 special group of "physiological" sciences. Lamarck, in 

 a work published in iSci," for the first time made use of 

 the name " Biologic " from the two Greek words which 

 signify a discourse upon life and living things. About the 

 same time, it occurred to Treviranus that all those 

 sciences which deal with living matter are essentially and 

 fundamentally one, and ought to be treated as a whole, 

 and, in the year 1802, he published the first volume of 

 what he also called " Biologie." Treviranus's great 

 merit consists in this, that he worked out his idea, and 

 wrote the very remarkable book to which I refer. It 

 consists of six volumes, and occupied its author for twenty 

 years — from 1 802 to 1 822. 



That is the origin of the term " Biology," and that is how 

 it has come about that all clear thinkers and lovers of con- 

 sistent nomenclature have substituted for the old confusing 

 name of " Natural History," which has conveyed so many 

 meanings, the term " Biology '* which denotes the whole of 

 the sciences which deal with living things, whether they 

 be animals or whether they be plants. Some little time 

 ago— in the course of this year, I think— I was favoured 

 by a learned classic, Dr. Field of Norwich, with a dis- 

 quisition, in which he endeavoured to prove that, fi-om a 

 philological point of view, neither Treviranus nor Lamarck 

 had any right to coin this new word "Biology" for their 

 purpose ; that, in fact, the Greek word "Bios" had relation 

 only to human life and human affairs, and that a different 

 word was employed when they wished to speak of the life 

 of animals and plants. So Dr. Field tells us we are all 

 wrong in using the term biology, and that we ought to 

 employ another, only unluckily he is not quite sure about 

 the propriety of that which he proposes as a substi- 

 tute. It is a somewhat hard one — zootocology. I am 

 sorry we are wrong, because we are likely to continue so. 

 In these matters we must have some sort of " Statute of 

 Limitations." When a name has been employed for 

 half-a-century, persons of authority ^ have been using it, 

 and its sense has become well understood, I am afraid 

 that people will go on using it, whatever the weight of 

 philological objection. 



Now that we have arrived at the origin of this word 

 " Biology," the next point to consider is : What ground 

 does it cover? I have said that in its strict technical 

 sense it covers all the phenomena that are exhibited by 

 living things, as distinguished from those which are not 

 living ; but while that is all very well so long as we confine 

 ourselves to the lower animals and to plants, it lands us in 

 a very considerable difficulty when we reach the higher 

 forms of living things. For whatever view we may enter- 

 tain about the nature of man, one thing is perfectly certain, 

 that he is a living creature. Hence, if our definition is to 

 be interpreted strictly, we must include man and all his 

 ways and works under the head of Biology ; in which case 

 we should find that psychology, politics, and political eco- 

 nomy, would be absorbed into the province of Biology. 

 In fact, civil history would be merged in natural history. 

 In strict logic it may be hard to object to this course, 

 because no one can doubt that the rudiments and 

 outlines of our own mental phenomena are traceable 

 among the lower animals. They have their economy and 

 their polity, and if, as is always admitted, the polity of 

 bees and the commonwealth of wolves fall within the 

 purview of the biologist proper, it becomes hard to 

 say why we should not include therein human affairs, 

 which in so many cases resemble those of the bees in 



• See the distinction between the "sciences physiques" and the "sciences 

 physiologiques " in the "Anatomic Gen(Jrale," 1801. 



^ '' Hydrogeologic," an. x. (i8«i). 



3 'The term Biology, which n.eans exactly what we wish to express, the 

 Science of Life, has often been used and has of late become not uncommon 

 amons good writers."— Whewell, " Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences,'" 

 vol. I. p. 544 (edition of 1847). 



zealous getting, and are not without a certain parity in the 

 proceedings of the wolves. The real fact is that we 

 biologists are a self-sacrificing people .; and inasmuch as, 

 on a moderate estimate, there are about a quarter of a 

 million different species of animals and plants to know 

 about already, we feel that we have more than sufficient 

 territory. There has been a sort of practical convention 

 by which we give up to a different branch of science what 

 Bacon and Ilobbes would have called " Civil History." 

 That branch of science has constituted itself under 

 the head of Sociology. I may use phraseology which 

 at present will be well understood and say that we have 

 allowed that province of Biology to become autonomous ; 

 but I should like you to recollect that that is a sacrifice, 

 and that you should not be surprised if it occasionally 

 happens that you see a biologist trespassing upon ques- 

 tions of philosophy or politics ; or meddling with human 

 education ; because, after all, that is a part of his kingdom 

 which he has only voluntarily forsaken. 



Having now defined the meaning of the word Biology, 

 and having indicated the general" scope of Biological 

 Science, 1 turn to my second question, which; is — 

 Why should we study Biology 1 Possibly the time may 

 come when that will seem a very odd question. That 

 we, living creatures, should not feel a certain amount of 

 interest in what it is that constitutes our life will even- 

 tually, under altered ideas of the fittest objects of human 

 inquiry, seem to be a singular phenomenon ; but at 

 present, judging by the practice of teachers and educators, 

 this would seem to be a matter that does not concern us at 

 all. I propose to put before you a few considerations which 

 I dare say many of you will be familiar with already, but 

 which will suffice to show — not fully, because to demon- 

 strate this point fully would take a great many lectures — 

 that there are some very good and substantial reasons 

 why it may be advisable that we should know something 

 about this branch of human learning. I myself entirely 

 agree with another sentiment of the philosopher of 

 Malmesbury, "that the scope of all speculation is the per- 

 formance of some action or thing to be done," and I have 

 not any very great respect for, or interest in, mere knowing 

 as such. I judge of the value of human pursuits by their 

 bearing upon human interests ; in other words, by their 

 utility, but I should like that we should quite clearly un- 

 derstand what it is that we mean by this word "utility." 

 Now in an Englishman's mouth it generally means that by 

 which we get pudding or praise, or both. I have no 

 doubt that is one meaning of the word utility, but it by 

 no means includes all I mean by utility. I think that 

 knowledge of every kind is useful in proportion as it 

 tends to give people right ideas, which are essential to 

 the foundation of right practice, and to remove wrong 

 ideas, which are the no less essential foundations and 

 fertile mothers of every description of error in prac- 

 tice. And inasmuch as, whatever practical people may 

 say, this world is, after all, absolutely governed by 

 ideas, and very often by the wildest and most hypo- 

 thetical ideas, it is a matter of the very greatest 

 importance that our theories of things, and even of 

 things that seem a long way apart from our daily lives, 

 should be as far as possible true, and as far as pos- 

 sible removed from error. It is not only in the coarser 

 practical sense of the word "utiUty," but in this higher and 

 broader sense that I measure the value of the study of bio- 

 logy by its utility, and I shall try to point out to you that you 

 will feel the need of some knowledge of biology at a gieat 

 many turns of this present nineteenth century life of ours. 

 For example, most of us lay great and very just stress, 

 upon the conception which is entertained ot the posi- 

 tion of man in this universe and his relation to the rest 

 of nature. We have almost all of us been told, and most 

 of us hold by the tradition, that man occupies an isolated 

 and peculiar position in nature ; that though he is in the 

 world he is not of the world ; that his relations to things 



