March 31, 1910J 



NATURE 



145 



yet realised these things, I would urge them from hence- 

 forth to bear their part in this movement, which may 

 result in issues more far-reaching than any of us can at 

 the moment conceive. Let me repeat that it is not neces- 

 sary for every nature-lover, nor for every collector, to 

 become a man of science ; yet everyone may become in 

 some measure a contributor to science. 



When do the facts observed, or believed to have been 

 observed, become data? Not when they are thrown away 

 loosely into the chambers of memory, to be brought out 

 again for use a few years later, clogged with the dust of 

 time, or metamorphosed by long yet unsuspected contact 

 with some subtle subconsciousness with which they ought 

 to have had no affinity. No ; the memory, however excel- 

 lent, is not a safe repository for facts which are to be 

 used as data ; as soon as possible they ought to be reduced 

 to writing. For it is impossible to overestimate the 

 importance of absolute accuracy as a basis for all scientific 

 generalisations. 



I have often been impressed with the thought of the 

 dependence of the greatest statisticians on the humblest 

 recorders. Most of us have had questions addressed to us 

 by Prof. Karl Pearson on simple questions of family 

 statistics ; and the entomologists have been asked to 

 furnish to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society 

 certain data regarding percentages of black and of white 

 moths among their favourites. These are but random 

 examples which occur to me of what is constantly going 

 on in the world of to-day ; and yet on the faithfulness 

 of the replies to such questions may well hang the entire 

 development of the infant science of eugenics, the whole 

 welfare, and perhaps ultimately the very continuance, of 

 the human race. Fortunately, I believe — and one may 

 hold this belief without a verv over-exalted estimate of the 

 average integrity of mankind — the danger of wilful per- 

 version of facts which are to be used as data is extremely 

 small. No doubt there are romancers here and there, and 

 a de Rougemont or a Dr. Cook may set back the clock 

 for a moment or two on occasions ; but men such as these 

 have generally some motive of self-interest behind their 

 romancing, and I do not think there is any large army of 

 hoaxers for hoaxing's sake. 



Although, however, there is very little to fear from 

 wilful deceivers of their fellows, there is very much to 

 fear from unconscious self-deceivers. It is true that we 

 have little to depend upon, whether in nature-study or 

 in scientific research, but the evidence of our senses ; but 

 it is equally true that we must not allow ourselves to be 

 deluded by our senses. I have on other occasions urged 

 that the cardinal virtue of a naturalist is fidelity to his 

 own observations, but he must make very sure that they 

 are observations, and not imaginings. It is a perfectly 

 well-known fact that even careful and experienced men of 

 science have sometimes been led astray by certain psycho- 

 logical processes, and have seen things which it has after- 

 wards been proved to demonstration were not, and could 

 not have been, present for them to see. 



The subtle enemy which all observers and recorders have 

 to fight is, I believe, named by psychologists " sugges- 

 tion," or, more particularly, " auto-suggestion." All of 

 us know, and yet few of us give the knowledge its due 

 weight in dealing with the analysis of our observations, 

 that whatever is present as a mental background is ever 

 liable to colour the newly arriving impressions from with- 

 out. If something which we see. falls in naturally with 

 our expectations, that is, if its incidence on the mind 

 causes no sense of jarring, we assume that it is correctly 

 observed, and make no attempt at verification ; if, on the 

 other hand, it conflicts with our expectation — in other 

 •words, with past experiences or general habits of thought 

 — we are sceptical, and demand a repetition of the observa- 

 tion before acknowledging that our senses have not deceived 

 us. Now is there not really a great deal to be said in 

 favour of a diametrically opposite course? Should we 

 not be more suspicious of the expected when it is observed, 

 and more trustful of the unexpected? I need scarcely add 

 that I do not mean this to be the universal principle of 

 life ; we should have more than enough to do if, every 

 time we entered our homes, we made it a duty to investi- 

 gate whether the familiar faces and objects with which 

 we met — and had been expecting to meet — might not in 

 reality be the phantasms of our own brain ! I am referring 

 NO. 2109, VOL. 83] 



solely to phenomena which are under observation or in- 

 vestigation for furnishing scientific data ; it is in these 

 that we are too apt to accept the expected, perhaps also 

 too apt to discredit the abnormal. 



A plain and evident observation, made under no pre- 

 conceived notion that it was about to be observed, may, in 

 a normal state of health, be noted down as a fact, and 

 thenceforth relied upon. If a member of our ornithological 

 or Lepidoptera committee observes a bird or a moth with 

 which he is well acquainted, he is entitled to make and 

 to use the "record," which should be given full credence. 

 Of course, there may be an error — infallibility is not an 

 over-common attribute of man — and it is always satis- 

 factory if two or three can make the observation 

 simultaneously, or in such a way as to confirm one 

 another, or if, as with our botanical committee, a speci- 

 men can be obtained as a voucher ; but no good purpose 

 is served by constant suspicion of data of this kind unless 

 the recorder has proved himself untrustworthy. On the 

 other hand, the observer himself should be the first to 

 desire every possible verification, especially in cases of 

 intricacy or difficulty of observation, such as in most 

 microscopic work, or where he has any reason to suspect 

 that " the wish is father to the thought." In all such 

 cases a fact should not be considered as established until 

 it has been verified two or three times, and under the 

 most favourable conditions obtainable. 



The most difficult questions of all have been left until 

 last, and I really do not feel competent to give either an 

 adequate answer. What facts or data are worth record- 

 ing? .And what steps should the recorder take to place 

 them at the disposal of the specialist who could usethem? 

 In regard to the first question, I would say that, ideally, 

 almost everything is worth recording ; but, practically, life 

 is too short, nature too long. While we are staying to 

 record something commonplace, or already well known, we 

 may be missing valuable opportunities of turning our 

 attention to something more important. A retentive 

 memory should be cultivated, so that -we may know, to 

 some extent, what has already been established by our- 

 selves or others ; and we shall then find that the most 

 casual passing attention will suffice to accumulate any 

 supplementary- testimony that may be needed. For the 

 rest, I think we ought to work upon the principle that a 

 few things thoroughly observed and confirmed will form 

 fPbm us a worthier contribution to the sum total of science 

 than a hundred half-observed and half-guessed at. As to 

 the second question. To what use should the recorder put 

 his data? I touched upon this in my former address, but 

 there are great difficulties in the way of the application 

 of sound methods, and the ideal arrangements are as yet 

 far off. A society like ours ought to have a research 

 committee in every possible field of nature-study, besides 

 one or two committees for coordination of work along 

 different lines — organisation, biology, topographical know- 

 ledge, bibliography — besides a sort of clearing-house for 

 miscellaneous information ; then (and not until then, I 

 fear) it will be possible for observers rightly to place their 

 data, and though much will be handed in which leads no 

 further, there will also be much solid material for the 

 rearing of the noblest edifices in the future of natural- 

 history research. 



UNIVERSITY AhW EDUCATIONAL 

 INTELLIGENCE. 



Oxford. — The Hebdomadal council has appointed Prof. 

 Poulton, F.R.S., Dr. Dixey, fellow of Wadham College, 

 and Dr. Malcolm Burr, New College, as representatives of 

 the University at the International Congress of Entomology 

 to be held at Brussels in August next. 



We learn from Science that Columbia University has 

 received an anonymous gift of 70,000?. for the erection 

 of a building for the faculty of philosophy. The University 

 has also received anonymously 3000Z. for work in agri- 

 cultural education. From the same source we gather that 

 a zoological laboratory is to be erected at the University 

 of Pennsylvania, at a cost of about 50,000/. In making 

 the announcement recently, Provost Harrison stated that it 

 would be " the most complete biological laboratory yet 



