512 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. L. No. 1301 



teacher, 3. Zoologists: (a), 25; (b), 12; (c), 

 6; (d), &2/ a zoologist, 2. 



Summarizing the opinions above stated, it 

 is evident: 



1. That the majority of botanists (49:24) 

 are opposed to a course in general biology, 

 while the majority of the zoologists (31 :14) 

 favor such a course. 



2. That, if given, the majority of botanists 

 (44:19) would treat it as an independent 

 entity, while the majority of zoologists 

 (20:15) would make it prerequisite to courses 

 in botany and zoology. 



3. That in the opinion of the majority of 

 botanists a course in general biology does not 

 constitute a desirable prerequisite (54:18) to 

 courses in botany and zoology, and should not 

 be made an obligatory prerequisite (59 :13) ; 

 while in the opinion of the majority of zool- 

 ogists it is a desirable prerequisite (23:20), 

 although it should not be made obligatory 

 (22:18). 



4. That the great majority of botanists 

 (57 :Y) regard a course in general biology as 

 inferior to two consecutively arranged but 

 virtually independent courses, elementary 

 botany and elementary zoology, while the 

 zoologists are about evenly divided (inferior, 

 17:16) on this question. 



5. That in the opinion of the majority both 

 of botanists (58) and zoologists (25) a course 

 in general biology should be taught by both 

 botanists and zoologists rather than by either 

 one or the other; while in the opinion of a 

 minority (15 botanists, 20 zoologists) it 

 should be given by one teacher. 



Theoretically, a course in general hiology 

 such as the one here prescribed may seem 

 desirahle; practically it is not. This in effect 

 is the opinion of many botanists and zoolo- 

 gists, both among those who voted in its favor 

 and among those who voted against it. The 

 truth of this assertion is substantiated by the 

 relatively large number of institutions which 

 in times past have organized such a course, 

 only to abandon it. Whatever may be said 

 in its favor, the fact remains that in the 

 long run the general biology course has not 

 proved satisfactory in at least the majority 

 of those institutions having distinct depart- 



ments of botany and zoology. On the whole, 

 it appears that the advantages gained, if there 

 are any, by attempting to dove-tail botanical 

 and zoological material into one harmonious 

 whole are more than outweighed by the dis- 

 advantages. The nature and seriousness of 

 these disadvantages, as expressed by various 

 college and university teachers, is indicated 

 in the paragraphs which follow. 



1. An elementary course in general Mology 

 is altogether too dependent for its success on 

 the personnel of its teaching staff. 



It is quite as important how a thing is 

 taught the student as what is taught him. 

 In the hands of a master, general biology, or 

 any other subject, can not fail to be a source 

 of profit and inspiration. But the type of 

 course that leans too heavily for support on 

 the personality of the teacher is destined to 

 fall, sooner or later. Huxley's own course in 

 elementary biology virtually died with him, 

 for when he ended his teaching career at the 

 Royal College of Science it was divided into 

 two practically independent courses, a botan- 

 ist being appointed to do the botanical teach- 

 ing and a zoologist the zoological — an ar- 

 rangement that has continued to the present 

 day. 



It is doubtless true that there are some 

 zoologists who are capable of giving a better 

 course in botany than are many botanists 

 (and vice versa). But how many zoologists 

 or botanists of this sort are there in charge 

 of courses in general biology? Unquestion- 

 ably there are occasional teachers of biology 

 in our higher institutions of learning who 

 are well equipped both on the botanical and 

 the zoological side of biology, and who are 

 impartially interested in both phases of life — 

 men with a broad vision over both fields and 

 competent both to organize and to conduct a 

 course in general biology: in other words, 

 true biologists. But in these days of special- 

 ization men of this type are so rare as to 

 be almost extinct. The average biologist, so 

 styled, is not a biologist at all in the true 

 sense of the word. He reads the Journal 

 of Experimental Zoology or the Botanical 

 Gazette, but rarely both. He is a member 

 of the Society of American Zoologists or of 



