II30 LIFE : OUTLINES OF GENERAL BIOLOGY 



others since have speculated, its real beginnings are only with and 

 since Buffon, while its modern discussion was mainly initiated by 

 Lamarck, and especially developed by Darwin. So the question 

 here arises — how can we be sure we have got all possible main sub- 

 sciences of biology ? Have we any certainty that the future may not 

 disclose some new field or fields altogether, so far by us moderns 

 overlooked ? We may leave this as an open question for the moment ; 

 for all will agree that the main thing is, first to make sure of what- 

 ever we have already got. How best can this be done? On one side, 

 as just indicated, this needs a study of the historic progress of 

 biology, continued up to its present progress; so all this involves 

 a vast literature. One not inconsiderable even from the early past; 

 as notably from our master Aristotle, and his successors; then less 

 important, yet not altogether negligible, up to the Renaissance, 

 with its notable initiatives and important literature, ever increasing 

 until the present day; so that if our reader is really determined to 

 get fully up to date, we might provide him with references. To 

 exhaust them for the past year, he should read (say) 2,000 pages a 

 day during the current year, and employ such leisure as may 

 remain to overtake the like during many previous years as well; 

 and still be a year behind the times, since this year is doubtless 

 producing no less ! However, as neither we nor any of our colleagues 

 have attempted any such feats of voracity, it is evident that we 

 must have among us some organised system of indexing, and even 

 summarising, this only too abundant literature of biology. Thanks 

 to a great deal of co-operative labour, the bulk of this gets done: 

 yet there is no method systematic enough to make references as 

 easy as we all desire; nor yet certain; for the colossal disaster of 

 losing sight of Mendel's work, between Darwin's time and our own, 

 is not yet fully ensured against. 



It is evident then that we cannot attempt any such bibliography 

 here, nor even any general history of biology; for every such history 

 is itself a substantial volume and filled with references to minor 

 and departmental histories; while bibliography has many volumes 

 every year. Hence are we not driven to seek out, as for the sciences 

 in general, some broad outline and conspectus? — and this not only 

 clearly defining the sub-sciences, but discerning their rationale, as 

 well as their concrete scope, and next their respective orderly 

 development and rational treatment. To face this enormous litera- 

 ture, and broadly to understand this, as well as to bring fuller 

 human interests and understanding sympathy into each of our sub- 

 sciences, we have to outline the main history of biology. Again 

 therefore — there is no help for it — we must set about making 

 graphics for these different problems, and if these can be made so as 

 to serve as keys to these sub-sciences, as studied in nature or pre- 

 sented in museums, as well as keys also to their vast departmental 



