D. — ZOOLOGY. 93 



to develop seas, to conserve existing industries as well as to discover new 

 ones, and they, too, are compelled to mark time. 



In default, or in spite of, the efforts of the schools of pure zoology, 

 attempts are being made to set up special training schools in fisheries, 

 in entomology, and in other economic applications of zoology. Each 

 branch is regarded as a science and the supporters of each suppose 

 they can, from the commencement of a lad's scientific training, give 

 specialised instruction in each. The reseai'cher in each has to do the 

 research which the economic side requires. But he can't restrict his 

 education to one science ; he requires to know the principles of all 

 sciences ; he must attempt to understand what life is. Moreover, his 

 specialist knowledge can seldom be in one science. The economic 

 entomologist, however deep his knowledge of insects may be, will find 

 himself frequently at fault in distinguishing cause and effect unless he 

 has some knowledge of mycology. The protozoologist must have an 

 intimate knowledge of unicellular plants, bacterial and other. The 

 animal-breeder must know the work on cross-fertilisation of plants. 

 The fisheries man requires to understand physical oceanogi'aphy. The 

 helminthologist and the veterinary surgeon require an intimate know- 

 ledge of a rather specialised ' physiology. ' All need knowledge of l"he 

 comparative physiology of animals in other groups beyond those with 

 which they deal, to assist them in their deductions and to aid them to 

 secure the widest outlook. It is surely a mistake, while the greatest 

 scientific minds of the day find that they require the widest knowledge, 

 to endeavour to get gi-eat scientific results out of students whose train- 

 ing has been narrow and specialised. Such specialisation requires to 

 come later, and can replace nothing. This short cut is the longest way 

 round. The danger is not only in our science, but in every science. 



In face of this highly gi'atifying need for trained zoologists, indepen- 

 dently of medical schools, I ask my colleagues in the teaching of zoology, 

 ' What is wrong with our schools of zoology that they are producing 

 so few men of science? It is not the subject ! Can it be our presenta- 

 tion of it, or is it merely a question of inadequate stipends? ' 



In science schools there can be no standing still. Progress or 

 retrogression in thought, technique, and method are the two alterna- 

 tives. If we are to progress we must see ever wider vistas of thought, 

 and must use the achievements of cur pi'edecessors as the take-off for 

 our own advances. The foundations of our science were well and truly 

 laid, but we must not count the bricks for ever, but add to theni. 

 Par be it from me to decry the knowledge and ideas our predecessors 

 have given to us. To have proved the possibility, nay, probabihty, that 

 all life is one life and that life itself is pei'manent is an immense achieve- 

 ment. To have catalogued the multitudinous forms that life takes in 

 each country was a herculean task. To have studied with meticulous 

 care the shapes, forms, and developments of organs in so many bodies 

 was equally herculean. It was as much as could be expected in the 

 nineteenth century, during most of which zoology was in advance of 

 all other sciences. But surely for these pioneer workers this docket- 

 ing, tabulating, and collecting was not the object of their research, 

 but the means to its attainment. The prize they sought was the under* 



