Decembes 5, 1919] 



SCIENCE 



513 



the Botanical Society of America, but never 

 of both. His research is in animal biology 

 (or zoology) or in plant biology (or botany), 

 one or the other. In short, he is either a 

 zoologist or a botanist. To be sure, certain 

 groups of botanists and zoologists find a 

 common meeting ground in the American 

 Society of Naturalists or in the Ecological 

 Society of America. The geneticist, whether 

 working with plants or animals, reads 

 Genetics and the American Naturalist; the 

 eeologist reads the Journal of Ecology. But 

 the mutual interests which bind together va- 

 rious groups of zoologists and botanists are 

 in very special fields, such as genetics, evolu- 

 tion, cytology and ecology. The fact remains 

 that, while there are plenty of ardent zoolo- 

 gists and ardent botanists, there are few, if 

 any, ardent biologists. 



In charge of either zoologists or botanists 

 how can a course in general biology help be- 

 coming one-sided? One phase is almost sure 

 to be emphasized at the expense of the other, 

 and the student can not avoid getting a dis- 

 torted view of biology. Where taught by a 

 zoologist general biology too often becomes 

 zoology with a mere sprinkling of plants, 

 and possibly vice versa. Even if he means 

 to give fair and impartial treatment to both 

 phases of biology, it is indeed a rare enthu- 

 siast who can avoid instilling his students 

 with the greater importance of his own 

 particular field of interests. 



But there is still another objection to a 

 general biology course being given either by 

 a zoologist or by a botanist. There are alto- 

 gether too many good zoologists, for example, 

 whose knowledge of biology outside their own 

 field is extremely limited. Only too often 

 their familiarity with plants is little more 

 than skin-deep- They may have sufficient in- 

 formation to enable them to work into a gen- 

 eral biology course whatever of botany they 

 deem essential, but beyond the covers of the 

 text-book they have no real knowledge of the 

 subject. Their thin veneer of botanical wisdom 

 may well pass muster in a high school, but it 

 does not take the more mature college student 

 long to penetrate beneath the surface. It is 

 an experience altogether too common that a 



student coming into botany from a course 

 in general biology is so woefully lacking in 

 his comprehension of plant life that it is 

 necessary for him to repeat all over again 

 the botanical studies he has already made. 

 And what is more, such impressions as he 

 has gained, quite as often as not, are inac- 

 curate if not absolutely incorrect. The old 

 adage is a good one : " Let the cobbler stick 

 to his last." 



If a course in general biology is to be given 

 at all it should be conducted either by 

 genuine biologists or else conjointly by both 

 zoologists and botanists. A dual teaching 

 force, part zoologists and part botanists, ap- 

 parently has proved successful at some insti- 

 tutions where general biology is taught, but 

 more often this arrangement seems to have 

 proved a failure. A course given by two 

 heads is liable to lack the necessary imity. 

 Different points of view, interdepartmental 

 jealousy, human nature: all these interfere 

 with complete harmony. Such a course will 

 naturally tend to resolve itself into two more 

 or less distinct portions. Why not recognize 

 this danger and, instead of attempting to 

 splice together the subject matter of the two 

 fields of biology, give two courses from the 

 outset ? 



2. Biology is a hyhrid course. 



An elementary course in general biology 

 interweaves a study of plants and animals in 

 an impossible attempt to show to beginning 

 students that the two sets of forms illustrate 

 the same principles. The fact is that while 

 botany and zoology are both biological sub- 

 jects, botany is the study of one phase of life 

 and the structures which it has built up, just 

 as zoology is the study of another phase of 

 life and the analogous but not homologous 

 structures which it has built up. The ele- 

 mentary student needs to have emphasized, 

 in studying these two sciences, the dissimi- 

 larities rather than the similarities. Each 

 line of study has its most important problems 

 of relationship, evolution and physiology con- 

 nected in its series, and these can not be 

 brought out as clearly nor with as much em- 

 phasis when the two are mixed up together. 

 There may be some advantages, if one is con- 



