May 28, 1896J 



NA TURE 



87 



Nearly half the second volume is devoted to the Glyptodon- 

 tid^. The author rejects the various sulidivisions of this family 

 suggested by Ameghino and adopted by Ziticl, and refers all the 

 species to six genera, some seventeen other generic terms being 

 regarded as synonymous. 



In this group the earlier forms are of comparatively small size, 

 and it is only in the later (Pleistocene) deposits that such giants 

 as Glyplodoii davipes and DiTiiiciiriis c/ariiaiidaliis are found. 

 The same jirogressive increase in bulk is noticeable in other 

 groups, <•.;,'. in the Mylodonts and in the Litopterna among the 

 Ungulates. It is not improbable that the great .size of the Pleisto- 

 cene species had much to do with their rapid extermination 

 when some change in the environment look place. 



The remainder of the memoir deals w ilh the Dasypodida? and 

 Megatheriid.v ; the latter family being given a somewhat wider 

 scope than usual. The most interesting of the genera described 

 is Eucholiecops, which is probably ancestral to the Mylodonts 

 and in some respects approaches Alyrmecojihaga. 



These memoirs are illustrated by more than a hundred magni- 

 ficent photographic plates, undoubtedly among the finest of their 

 kind yet published ; and while lithographic drawings by a com- 

 petent artist are to be preferred for the representation of detail, 

 such figures as those of the skeletons of Toxodon and of many 

 of the Glyptodonts will not easily be surpassed. 



The text is printed in English and Spanish in parallel 

 columns ; the English portion is unfortunately disfigured by 

 very numerous misprints, doubtless owing to the fact that the 

 author was compelled to entrust the correction of the proof- 

 sheets to some person unfamiliar with \hii language. 



THE EVOLUTION OF MODERN SCIENTIFIC 



LABORATORIES} 

 "npiIE scientific discoveries of the present century have had 

 such a profound influence upon inventions, upon indus- 

 tries, and upon the comfort, health, and welfare of the people 

 in general, that there is widespread, even if not always 

 adequate, appreciation of the value of scientific study and 

 investigation. But it may be doubted whether there is any 

 proper understanding, in the minds even of the educated public, 

 of the material circumstances which surround scientific dis- 

 covery and which make it possible. The average man, if 

 interested at all, is interested that the discovery is made, not 

 how it is made. 



In America, where men of science rely mainly upon enlightened 

 private beneficence, and not upon governmental aid, to furnish 

 the pecuniary resources which are essential for scientific pro- 

 gress, it is important that there should be some general inform- 

 ation not only regarding the results of scientific work, but also 

 regarding the external material conditions necessary for the 

 fruitful prosecution of such work. 



At the present day the systematic study and advancement of 

 any physical or natural science, including the medical sciences, 

 requires trained workers who can give their time to the work, 

 suitably constructed work-rooms, an equipment with all of the 

 instruments and appliances needed for the special work, a 

 supply of the material to be studied, and ready access to the 

 more important books and journals containing the special 

 literature of the science. 



All of these conditions are supplied by a well-equipped and 

 properly organised modern laboratory. Such laboratories are, 

 with the partial exception of the anatomical laboratory, entirely 

 the creation of the present century, and for the most part of the 

 last fifty years. They have completely revolutionised during 

 the past half-century the material conditions under which scien- 

 tific work is prosecuted. They are partly the result, and in 

 larger part the cause, of that rapid progress of the physical 

 and natural sciences which characterises the era in which we 

 are living. 



The evolution of the modern laboratory still awaits its his- 

 torian. It is not diRicult to find incidental references to 

 historical facts bearing upon this subject. The development 

 of the chemical laboratory has been traced with some fulness. 

 But it is curious that there is no satisfactory monographic treat- 

 ment of the general subject of the historical development of 

 scientific laboratories. The subject seems to me an attractive 



1 An address delivered at ihe opening of thu William Pepper Laboratory 

 of Clinical .Medicine, Philadelphia, December 4, 1895, by Prof. William H 

 Welch. 



NO. 1387, VOL. 54] 



one. It would surely be interesting to trace the development 

 of the teaching and the investigating laboratory back to its 

 beginnings, to learn about the material circumstances under 

 which the physicists, the chemists, the morphologists, and phy- 

 siologists of former generations worked. What share in the 

 development of laboratories had the learned academies of the 

 Renaissance and of the subsequent centuries ? What share had 

 public and private museums and collections of instruments of 

 precision ? What share had the work of the exact experiment- 

 alists, beginning with Galileo, of physicians, of the alchemists, 

 and of the apothecaries? What individuals, universities, cor- 

 porations, and governments were the pioneers in the establish- 

 ment of laboratories for the various physical and natural sciences ? 

 The detailed consideration of the.se and many other questions 

 pertinent to the subject would make an interesting and valuable 

 historical contribution. 



There is evidence that in Alexandria, under the early 

 Ptolemies in the third century before Christ, there existed 

 Slate-supported institutes, in wliich students of man and of 

 nature could come into direct personal contact with the objects 

 of study, and by the aid of such appliances as were then avail- 

 able could carry on scientific investigations. The practical 

 study of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and other natural 

 sciences was here cultivated. We are very imperfectly informed 

 as to the results and the material circumstances of this remark- 

 able period in the history of science. We know that after about 

 a century of healthy activity the Alexandrian school gradually 

 sank into a place for metaphysical discussions. 



Fifteen hundred years elapsed before we next find any record 

 of the practical study of a natural science. In 1231, the great 

 Hohenstaufen, Frederick the Second, who has been called the 

 most remarkable historic figure of the Middle Ages, commanded 

 the teachers at Salernum diligently to cultivate the practical 

 study of 'anatomy. After the passage of this edict occasional 

 dissections of the human body were made, but it cannot be said 

 that there was any diligent cultivation of anatomy on the part 

 either of teachers or of students during the following two 

 centuries. 



In the latter half of the fifteenth century there developed that 

 active interest in the practical study of human anatomy which 

 culminated in the immortal work of Vesalius, published in 

 1543. After this the study of anatomy by dissections gradually 

 assumed in the medical curriculum that commanding position 

 which it has maintained up to the present day. 



For over six hundred years there has been at least some 

 practical instruction in anatomy, and for over three hundred years 

 there have existed anatomical laboratories for purposes of 

 teaching and of investigation, although only those constructed 

 during the present century meet our ideas of what an anatomical 

 laboratory should be. It is a matter of no little interest, both 

 for the history of medicine and for that of science in general, 

 that the first scientific laboratory was the anatomical laboratory. 

 Private laboratories for investigation must have existed from the 

 earliest times. Doubtless Aristotle had his laboratory. But the 

 kind of laboratory which we have on this occasion in mind is one 

 open to students or investigators, or both. There was no branch 

 of physical or natural science, with the exception of anatomy, 

 which students could study in the laboratory until after the 

 first quarter of the present century. Only in anatomy could 

 students come into direct contact with the object of study and 

 work with their own hands and investigate what lay below the 

 surface. 



The famous Moravian writer on education, Amos Comenius, 

 over two hundred and fifty years ago, gave vigorous expression to 

 the conception of living, objective teaching of the sciences. He 

 said, " Men must be instructed in wisdom so far as possible, not 

 from books, but from the heavens, the earth, the oaks and the 

 beeches — that is, they must learn and investigate the things 

 themselves, and not merely the observations and testimonies of 

 other persons concerning the things." " Who is there," he 

 cries, ' ' who teaches physics by observation and experiment instead 

 of by reading an Aristotelian or other text-book?" But how 

 little ripe were the conditions then existing for the successful 

 carrying out of ideas so far in advance of his times is illustrated 

 by the very writings of the author of " Orbis Pictus " and " Lux 

 in Tenebris." 



It would lead too far afield to trace in detail on this occasion 

 the development of physical and of chemical laboratories, but on 

 account of the intimate connection between the development of 

 physics and chemistry and that of medicine, especially of more 



