324 
NATURE 
[Aucust 3, 1899 
afterwards Koch confirmed the principal observations 
which had been made. 
If we can exterminate the malaria-bearing species of 
mosquito in a locality, we may expect to prevent the pro- 
pagation of the parasites there; I trust, therefore, that 
these investigations will not remain without practical 
results. 
It may be useful to add anote regarding the somewhat 
confused matter of the classification and nomenclature of 
the various species. I divide those of men and birds into 
two genera, named as follows :— 
Family : H&MAM@&BID&, Wasielewski. 
Genus I. Haemamoeba, Grassi and Feletti. Zhe mature 
gametocytes are similar in form to the mature 
sporocytes before the spores have been differentiated. 
Species 1: Haemamoeba Danilewskiz, Grassi and Feletti. Syn.: 
Laverania Danilewskii, Grassi and Feletti, in 
part; Halteridium Danilewski2, Labbé; Xe. 
Several varieties—possibly distinct species. Parasite 
of pigeons, jays, crows, &c. 
Species 2: Haemamoeba relicta, Grassi and Feletti. Syn.: 
Haemamoeba relicta + H, subpraecox + H, subim- 
maculata, Grassi and Feletti; Proteosoma Grassi, 
Labbé; &c. Parasite of sparrows, larks, &c. 
Species 3: Haemamoeba malariae, Grassi and Feletti. 
Haemamoeba Laverant, Labbe, in part. 
of quartan fever of man. 
Syn.: 
Parasite 
Syn. : 
Species 4: Haemamoeba vivax, Grassi and Feletti. 
Parasite 
Haemamoeba Laveraniz, Labbé, in part. 
of tertian fever of man. 
Genus II: Haemomenas, gen. nov. Syn.: Laverania, in part 
+ Haemamoeba, in part, Grassi and Feletti. Zhe 
gametocytes have a special crescentic form. 
Species: Haemomenas praecox, Grassi and Feletti. Syn. : 
Haemamoeba praccox + H.tmmaculata + Laverania 
malariae, Grassi and Feletti; Haemamoeba Laver- 
anz, Labbé, in part; &c. Several varieties—pos- 
sibly distinct species, Parasite of the irregular, 
remittent, pernicious or zestivo-autumnal fever of 
man. 
The two species lately discovered by Dionisi in bats 
appear to belong, one to one genus, and the other to the 
other genus. Two species described in frogs do not con- 
tain pigment, and require further study. Grassi and 
Feletti’s arrangement is very confused, chiefly on 
account of their combining A. Danzlewskiz with the 
crescentic gametocytes of A. fraecox in a separate 
genus, Laverania. Labbé admits only one human 
species, and yet erects two genera for the avian species. 
The double spore-clusters of 4. Danzlewskit, on which 
he lays much stress, are not always found, and are at 
the best due, I think, merely to the presence of the 
nucleus compressing so large a parasite. There is 
little to justify generic differences between the four 
species of Haemamoeba. On the other hand, the last 
species given above is sharply divided from the rest. 
The zygotes of three species have been found to 
develop in mosquitoes as follows :— 
Haemamoeba relicta in Culex pipiens. 
Haemamoeba vivax in Anopheles claviger. 
Haemomenas praecox in two undetermined species of 
Anopheles in India, and in Avzopheles claviger in Italy. 
The development is the same in all, but slight differ- 
ences in details have been noticed between A. vzvax and 
H. falcipara in the mosquito. 
The terminology employed above has been adopted in 
consultation with Prof. Herdman, F.R.S. Some of it 
has already been used in this connection by Mesnil, and 
by Grassi and Dionisi. Nuttall has recently givena very 
full account of the subject in the Ceztralblatt fir 
Bakteriologie. RONALD Ross. 
NO. 1553, VOL. 60] 
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION. 
een iy years have passed since Huxley said, at 
the opening of Mason College, Birmingham : “ How 
often have we not been told that the study of physical 
science is incompetent to confer culture ; that it touches 
none of the higher problems of life ; and what is worse, 
that the continual devotion to scientific studies tends to 
generate a narrow and bigoted belief in the applicability 
of scientific methods to the search after truth of all 
kinds? How frequently one has reason to observe that 
no reply to a troublesome argument tells so well as call- 
ing its author a ‘mere scientific specialist.’ And, I am 
afraid it is not permissible to speak of this form of 
opposition to scientific education in the past tense.” . . . 
The exact applicability of these words in this year of 
grace is as good an example of the slowness of progress 
as could be wished. It is still urged almost as persistently 
as ever, and with the weight of university authority, that 
the only avenue to culture is by way of classics and the 
humanities. Has nothing come of the example of men 
like Huxley, Darwin, and the host of other widely-read, 
and deeply-educated, students of nature who, having 
borne their testimony, have gone over to the great 
majority ? 
These thoughts follow naturally from recent events in 
connection with the discussions and suggestions anent 
the constitution of the proposed Board of Education. 
The retirement of Sir John Donnelly from the secretary- 
ship of the Science and Art Department led to the 
appointment of Sir George Kekewich to the vacant posi- 
tion, and for the future he will rule educational affairs 
both at South Kensington and Whitehall. In addition, 
two principal assistant secretaries were appointed, one 
for each of the departments referred to. These arrange- 
ments have disturbed the minds of the champions of 
that ill-defined section of educational work known as 
secondary education. After due representations Sir John 
Gorst stated, in the House of Commons, in reply to a 
question of Prof. Jebb, that a third official will be later 
appointed as assistant secretary for secondary education. 
This decision resulted in a correspondence which has 
brought to mind Huxley's addresses on education. 
When a distinguished scholar and, on most subjects, 
broad-minded thinker, as Sir William Anson is, ex- 
presses himself in words like the following, which are 
taken from a letter in the Zzmes of July 27, some sort of 
protest seems absolutely necessary. 
“ The attitude of those who are interested in secondary 
education, properly so-called, as distinct from elementary 
education on the one hand and instruction in science and 
art or technical education on the other.” 
“Scientific teaching alone will not produce the edu- 
cated man, and the scientific expert may not be the best 
judge of the value of literary and historical studies, or of 
the respective parts which science and the humanities 
should play, even in an education which is mainly 
scientific.” 
“It is very important if the educational forces are to 
be brought into line, if the youth of the country are not 
merely to acquire some useful knowledge, but to become 
educated men—that where secondary education is given 
at all it shouldbe given well, and that wherever it is 
given some one should watch over its interests and see 
that in the competition of humane and technical studies 
a due proportion is observed.” 
A number of unjustifiable conclusions may be derived 
from this letter ; and it is therefore worth while to deal 
with a few of the points in it. 
In the first place, it is tacitly assumed that some kind 
of secondary education exists in which instruction 
neither in science nor in art is given. The synonymous 
use of technical education and instruction in science and 
art must be passed over, though it provides a suggestive 
