5G8 REPORTS ON THK STATE OF SCIENCE. — 191C). 



university after imiversity in every part of the country. We are here concerned 

 ■with the scientific results of the new order of things. One of these results wa.'i 

 ■d marked — though some will think by no means sufficiently marked — increase 

 in tlie number of young men trained in the principles of science and practised 

 in some branch of it. This was all to the good. A class of jjotential workers 

 in science had come into being. At the same time, however, a still larger class 

 had been turned into tlie world with what may not unjustly be termed a smatter 

 of science. It need not be insisted on that the smatterers were not by any 

 means always the less noisy, the less self-assertive, or the less pretentious of 

 these two sets of men. It could scarcely be otherwise. 



What was the effect of this change on the provincial Field Clubs? The 

 newly created class of workers were soon busy at their professional labours — too 

 busy for the most part to become active members of the clubs. The smatterers 

 on the other hand either joined the clubs in a condescending manner or thought 

 themselves too good for them. The influence of this on the clubs was a curious 

 one. The old genuine Field Club naturalist was no sinatterer. What he knew 

 he knew well, from personal observation and from hard private reading, carried 

 on often at great sacrifice, for the love of Nature and knowledge. The new 

 smatterers were not to his taste ; their long words and arrogance drove him to 

 silence and spoilt for him the old feeling of club brotherhood and equality a.5 

 learners and seekers of the less academic days of the past. His modesty pro- 

 duced diffidence. Only the more sturdy and independent members resisted and 

 went on as before. The others gradually dropped off. The character of the 

 club had sensibly changed. 



Again, in the course of years all the flowers, beetles, butterflies, birds, and 

 beasts of a limited tract of country have practically been gathered. The lists of 

 all the larger objects are complete or nearly so. Only on the luckiest occasion 

 can even a new variety be found. Hence the purposes which actuated the eager 

 searchers of the past are much diminished in force. Only microscopic organisms 

 are left to he sought for. These hitherto unpopular crcatLires represent almost 

 the only remaining quarry, and their search is often difficult, and needs study 

 and patient application, together with the use of instruments beyond the reach 

 of many. Research of this kind is undoubtedly going on, but it must remain 

 in the hands of the few, and these few soon merge into experts and specialists 

 and find their way into one or other of the learned bodies dealing with the 

 subjects of their predilection. They cease to be general naturalists of the old 

 Field Club type. 



A third cause of change in the constitution and outlook of our Field Clubs is 

 one which has been effective for a long time. The distance from the metropolis, 

 which formerly kept outlying groups of naturalists together, has largely dis- 

 appeared with the ease and cheapness of modern means of communication. The 

 old insularity of places far from town was an asset as regards the solidarity of 

 their scientifically inclined dwellers. This insularity has broken down. A 

 Fellow of one of the great London societies, though be reside at Penzance or 

 Newcastle, can occasionally attend meetings at Burlington House and listen to 

 or oven read papers there and meet leaders of science whose names alone were 

 formerly known to him. This state of things is no doubt a gain to many a 

 worker in the provinces, but it is far from favourable to the Field Clubs as 

 they used to be. 



I have now enumerated and briefly commented on some of the chief factors 

 which, in the past half-century or so, liave, as it seems to me, been active in 

 the evolution of the Field Club type of scientific society. The Field Clubs are 

 no longer quite what they were. In some respects they have improved, in 

 others they have deteriorated. On the whole they are perhaps more scientific 

 than they used to be. I think they produce rather less original work properly 

 so called. They perhaps contain more well-known scientific names in their lists 

 of members, but a smaller number of their members remind one of the enthusi- 

 astic, self-taught, coadjuvant crowds of the past. They are less popular in the 

 best sense of that word. Evolution, here as elsewhere, has been of two kinds — 

 both progressive and retrogres=?ive. 



If it be admitted that I am in any way right in the views I have endeavoured 

 to lay before you, we may now proceed to consider whetlier some means can be 



