I^eb. 23, 1888] 



NA TURE 



401 



OcciiUation of Star by the Moon (visible at Greenwich). 



Corresponding 

 angles from ver- 



Feb. Star. Mag. Disap. Reap. tex to right for 



inverted image, 

 h. m. h. m. o q 



26 ... 7 Leonis 6J ... 5 16 ... 6 7 ... 112 291 



March. h. 



I ... 23 ... Mars in conjunction with and 2" 37' south 



of the Moon. 

 3 ... 19 ... Mercury in inferior conjunction with the 



Sun. 



Meteor- Showers. 

 R.A. Decl. 



Near 5 Virginis 192 ... 2 N. ... March 2 and 3. 



From Sagittarius 280 ... 17 S. ... Very swift; streaks. 



THE RELATIONS BETWEEN GEOLOGY AND 

 THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES?- 



T N the remarks which at our last anniversary I had the honour 

 of offering from tliis chair, I congratulated the students of 

 geology and mineralogy upon the new and intimate relations 

 which, to their mutual advantage, are now growing up between 

 those departments of science. It has, however, been suggested 

 that, while geologists are thus being brought into closer alliance 

 with mineralogists, the strong bonds of union which have so 

 long united us with the biologists are becoming somewhat 

 relaxed, and, indeed, stand in no small danger of actual 

 dissolution. 



Highly as I estimate the value of the rapprochement between 

 the geological and mineralogical sciences, I for one should 

 regard such a result as far too dearly purchased, if it necessarily 

 involved any interruption of the close relations which have so 

 long subsisted between geology and biology. But I cannot for 

 one moment believe that such a grievous misfortune seriously 

 threatens the cultivators of the two great departments of natural 

 science. 



Notwithstanding certain divergencies of opinion which have 

 made themselves heard within an ancient University, and have 

 awakened a faint echo in the halls of our National Museum, I 

 cannot doubt that the teachers of geology and biology will easily 

 discover a modus vivendi upon what is, after all, a subject of 

 very secondary importance — the arrangement of natural-history 

 collections. 



No one can read recent declarations of the present Director of 

 our National Museum without being impressed by his manifest 

 desire to make the splendid collections under his care reflect, 

 as completely as possible, the present condition of our knowledge 

 of natural hi>tory. And if, on the other hand, we turn to the 

 remarks made by the Keeper of the Zoological Department, at 

 Swansea, in 1880, and to those of the Keeper of the Paiseonto- 

 logical Department, at Manchester, last year, we shall find in 

 those utterances ample guarantees that, in the arrange nent of 

 their collections, questions of practical convenience will not be 

 lost sight of ; we shall be satisfied that there is not the smallest 

 danger of revolutionary ideas leading to the removal of "ancient 

 landmarks," or of unattainable ideals being sought through the 

 wholesale commingling of incongruous elements. The collections 

 of our Universities are happily free from the conditions which 

 must always hamper an institution where the interests of pooular 

 amusement have to be reconciled with those of scientific work ; 

 and it is for the teachers of natural science in those centres of 

 thought to agree upon an arrangement which may best serve to 

 illustrate their courses of instruction. 



But while the discussion on museum-arrangement may be 

 regarded as a purely academical one, which, after scintillating 

 for a while in letters and pamphlets, died out in some not very 

 formidable explosions at the recent meeting of the British 

 Association, it may be wise on our part not to pass by quite 

 unnoticed some indications of the attitude of the younger school 

 of biologists towards palseontological science, this attitude 

 having been very conspicuously manifested during the discussion 

 in question. 



If I rightly apprehend the views of some of my biological 

 friends, as gathered not only from their published utterances, 



• Address to the Geological Societjr by the President, Prof. Joha W. 

 Judd, F.R.S., at the Anniversary Meeting, on February 17. 



but also from private conversations, the position they are inclined 

 to take up may be expressed somewhat as follows : — 



"Palaeontology has no right whatever to separate existence as 

 a distinct branch of science. Fossils are simply portions of 

 animals and plants, and ought to be dealt with as such ; for all 

 scientific purposes it is quite immaterial whether the organism 

 which we are called upon to study expired only an hour since or 

 died millions of years ago. Imperfect fragments can only be 

 properly interpreted in the light afforded by the more complete 

 structures found in recent organisms ; and hence the naturalist 

 who is engaged in studying a particular group of living organisms 

 is the only person competent to deal with its fossil representa- 

 tives. In our laboratories and our museums alike, therefore, 

 fossil remains ought to be studied side by side with the living 

 types which most nearly resemble them, and always by the same 

 investigators. This being the case, it is neither necessary nor 

 expedient that there should be a class of students whose chief 

 concern is with extinct forms of life ; and as for the geologists, 

 they have really no farther concern with fossils than just to find 

 them, attach a label indicating the period at which they must 

 have lived, and hand them over to the biologist for study and in- 

 corporation in his collections. Any action beyond this can only 

 be regarded, indeed, as an act of usurpation on the part of geo- 

 lo.2;ists, and must tend, not,to the advancement, but to the injury 

 of true science. " 



Such, so far as I have been able to gather them, are the ex- 

 treme opinions which some biologists now entertain. It may, 

 perhaps, seem presumptuous on my part to venture to offer a plea 

 for palaeontology, but there are considerations which may induce 

 us to regard such a plea as coming better from one whose place 

 in the ranks of the geological army lies nearer the centre than 

 in the biological wing ; from one who regards palaeontology 

 as the borderland of the geological and biological sciences — a 

 borderland where the cultivators of both ought ever to meet, not 

 for rivalry and aggression, but for the necessities of intellectual 

 commerce and the advantages of mutual help. 



The view of palaeontology which 1 have ascribed, I believe 

 not unjustly, to some biologists is one which has just such an 

 amount of truth in it as to render it plausible, but at the same 

 time, as I cannot but believe, is one of those half-truths which 

 are proverbially more dangerous than downright errors. Palae- 

 ontology is not, as has often been confidently asserted, simply a 

 branch of biology ; it is equally a part of geological science, and 

 there are the strongest grounds, both of reason and expediency, 

 for retaining it in that position. All geological science is based 

 on the principle that the past can only be interpreted by the study 

 of the present ; Darwin was the intellectual child of Lyell, and 

 the "Origin of Species" was the logical outcome of the 

 "Principles of Geology." No palaeontologist, worthy of the 

 name, has ever dreamed of studying fossils except in the light 

 afforded by the investigation of their recent analogues. Indeed, 

 if we were to carry out the aggressive ideas of some biologists to 

 their legitimate con-equences, there would be left to us no 

 science of geology at all ; for why, it may be asked, should the 

 study of physical processes in the past be carried on separately 

 from the investigation of the same processes as exhibited at the 

 present time ? But then, by a strange Nemesis, I fear the same 

 all-devouring physics, after swallowing up geology, would make 

 very short work indeed with biology itself. And there is still 

 in the background another claimant for universal empire in the 

 realms of thought, for are there not some who dream of all 

 sciences ultimately becoming the victims of that new portent of 

 ambition — ' ' geography " ? 



In considering the present position and future claims of 

 palaeontology, I may be permitted at the outset to offer a protest 

 against a class of objections which has sometimes been very un- 

 fairly urged against the votaries of that branch of science. It has 

 often been assumed that the students of fossils are contented with 

 a lower standard of excellence than that which is aspired to by 

 the cultivators of other branches of natural history. Now, 

 setting aside for a moment the very important consideration that, 

 owing to the imperfection of the remains which they are called 

 upon to study, palaeontologists are confronted by difficulties which 

 do not beset the investigators of recent forms, I maintain that 

 the charge is an altogether unjust one. Palaeontologists are no 

 more responsible for the unwise use made of fossils by incom- 

 petent persons than are zoologists for the vagaries of shell- and 

 butterfly-hunters, or botanists for the absurdities of fern- and 

 diatom-collectors. 



Doubtless there has been much work done in connection with 



