312 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LI. No. 1317 



UNITY AND BALANCE IN THE ZOOL- 

 OGY COURSE 



In an earlier number of this journal,^ 

 apropos of an article by Professor Bradley 

 M. Davis upon the botany course of the 

 future, I briefly described the introductory 

 course in zoology in operation for several 

 years at the University of Michigan, and 

 pointed out some of the advantages which a 

 course centered around biological principles 

 possessed over the usual course based on the 

 dissection of types. Many inquiries concern- 

 ing this course v?ere received from all over 

 this country, and several from the other side 

 of the world, indicating a feeling of unrest 

 and dissatisfaction with the present prevail- 

 ing type course. Some of the writers of 

 these letters clearly recognized the defects of 

 the present method of teaching, and had 

 striven to remedy them without completely 

 reorganizing their courses. Others, while 

 perceiving that something was wrong, had 

 failed, it seems to me, to discern wherein lay 

 the difficulties. In the hope that a clear 

 understanding of the fundamental mistakes 

 of the type course will assist in removing 

 these difficulties, I have undertaken to pre- 

 sent herewith what appear to me to be the 

 requisites of the beginning course. 



The nature of the first course in science 

 should not be a matter of untrammeled opin- 

 ion, it should be determined by certain prin- 

 ciples. If those principles can be agreed 

 upon, the details may perhaps be varied with- 

 out harm. I submit two propositions which 

 I regard as almost axiomatic, namely, that the 

 course should be representative, and that it 

 should possess unity. If these propositions 

 are valid, the remainder of this article may 

 have some value. 



To apply the first of these rules, it is 

 necessary to have in mind the content of the 

 subject. On this question there may be 

 differences of opinion, but most of these opin- 

 ions can probably be arranged into two fairly 

 well-defined groups. Zoology consists either 

 (1) of a laiowledge of Protozoa, Porifera, 

 Ooelenterata, Platyhelminthes, etc., or (2) of 

 1 Science, December 27, 1918. 



a body of principles that may be brought 

 under such rubrics as morphology, physiology, 

 ecology, taxonomy, geographical distribution, 

 paleontology, and evolution. Between these 

 views the teacher must make a choice, if he 

 is to make his course representative, and the 

 nature of the course will depend upon his 

 decision. If the first of these views of the 

 content of zoology should prevail, he who 

 studies cell permeability in Paramecium is to 

 be regarded as a protozoologist, not as a phys- 

 iologist, or else he is not a zoologist at all; 

 the student of heredity in Drosophila is a 

 dipterist, not a geneticist; and one who traces 

 the origin of the horse is a mammalogist, 

 not a paleontologist or evolutionist. Very 

 few of the scholars mentioned would be con- 

 tent with the proposed appellation. 



If the second conception of the content of 

 zoology be entertained, as has been done in 

 the preparation of our first course, the incon- 

 gruities just referred to disappear. Other 

 difficulties are also removed, for the seven 

 divisions of zoology named above are not 

 mutually exclusive, but overlap, a circum- 

 stance which, far from being a misfortune, 

 is of much value in connection with the 

 second proposition to be developed later. 

 Genetics might fairly be added as an eight 

 division, but its main features are either mor- 

 phological, or physiological, or evolutionary. 

 The beginning course must contain the ele- 

 ments of each of these branches of the sub- 

 ject, if it is to be a general course. Whether 

 the course should be general or not may be 

 debated, but if it is to be general it must 

 include something from each field. 



The classical course in zoology is morpho- 

 logical, a dissection of types of the chief ani- 

 mal groups. Very little even of physiology 

 has been included in it, until in recent years 

 in a very few institutions. Such a course 

 was the proper course once upon a time, when 

 zoology was an almost purely morphological 

 subject. But as the subject grew, the type 

 course became a misfit. It has been a misfit 

 for a long time. 



Good teachers have attempted to ameliorate 

 this growing inaptness of their courses by 



