8 REPORT — 1889. 



The terms ' natural history ' and ' naturalist ' have become deeply 

 rooted in our language, but without any very definite conception of their 

 meaning or the scope of their application. Originally applied to the study 

 of all the phenomena of the universe which are independent of the agency 

 of man, natural history has gradually narrowed down in most people's minds, 

 in conseqnence of the invention of convenient and generally understood 

 and accepted terms for some of its various subdivisions, as astronomy, 

 chemistry, geology, &c., into that portion of the subject which treats 

 of the history of creatures endowed with life, for which, until lately, no 

 special name had been invented. Even from this limitation botany was 

 gradually disassociating itself in many quarters, and a ' naturalist ' and a 

 'zoologist' have nearly become, however irrationally, synonymous terms. 

 The happy introduction and general acceptance of the word ' biology,' 

 notwithstanding the objections raised to its etymological signification, 

 have reunited the study of organisms distinguished by the possession 

 of the living principle, and practically eliminated the now vague and 

 indefinite term ' natural history ' from scientific terminology. As, how- 

 ever, it is certain to maintain its hold in popular language, I would 

 venture to suggest the desirability of restoring it to its original and 

 really definite signification, contrasting it with the history of man and 

 of his works, and of the changes which have been wrought in the universe 

 by his intervention. 



It was in this sense that, when the rapid growth of the miscel- 

 laneous collections in the Bi'itish Museum at Bloomsbury (the expansion 

 of Sir Hans Sloane's accumulation in the old Manor House at Chelsea) 

 was thought to render a division necessary, the line of severance was 

 effected at the junction of what was natural and what was artificial ; the 

 former, including the pi'oducts of what are commonly called ' natural ' 

 forces, unafi'ected by man's handiwork, or the impress of his mind. The 

 departments which took cognisance of these were termed the ' Natural 

 History Departments,' and the new building to which they were removed 

 the ' Natural History Museum.' 



It may be worth while to spend a few moments upon the consideration 

 of the value of this division, as it is one which concerns the arrangement 

 and administration of the majority of museums. 



Though there is very much to be said for it, the objection has been 

 raised that it cuts man himself in two. The illustrations of man's bodily 

 structure are undoubtedly subjects for the zoologist. The subtile gra- 

 dations of form, proportion, and colour which distinguish the different 

 races of men, can only be appreciated by one with the education of an 

 anatomist, and whose eye has been trained to estimate the value of such 

 characters in discriminating the variations of animal forms. The subjects 

 for comparison required for this branch of research must therefore be 

 looked for in the zoological collections. 



But the comparatively now science of ' anthropology ' embraces not 



