202 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVII. No. 945 



few the records do not suggest any activity 

 beyond the circle. This is quite natural 

 and under our conditions is inevitable. 



I trust you will not misinterpret my 

 brief comments on the declared objects of 

 these societies. I am not criticizing, but 

 am trying to present as briefly as possible 

 some of the important facts and conditions 

 that have a bearing upon my question. 



Apparently there is still a demand for 

 these organizations. All of them empha- 

 size the fact that specialization and segre- 

 gating grouping has become necessary. I 

 dare say none of us will deny that the seg- 

 regation of specialists is a natural process 

 and that we shall always have the groups 

 now organized, or others to be established 

 as our points of view and interest shift. 

 You may regret it and to some extent even 

 rebel against it, but you can not ignore it 

 and have a part in the progress of science. 

 In yielding to this pressvire, however, we 

 may go to such an extreme as to fall far 

 short of legitimate expectations. And I 

 am constrained to declare that the tendency 

 of eminent zoologists to ignore Section F 

 and even to speak slightingly of it indicates 

 a sad misconception of our i-elations to so- 

 ciety at large. 



Only the declaration of the American 

 Society of Naturalists to adopt such meas- 

 ures as shall tend to the advancement and 

 diffusion of the knowledge of natural sci- 

 ence indicates a recognition of our obliga- 

 tions to all our fellow-citizens that is some- 

 what differently suggested in the "in- 

 creased facilities and a wider usefulness 

 . . . for the labors of scientific men" of 

 the American Association for the Advance- 

 .ment of Science. 



•Neither the Society of Naturalists nor 

 Section F has lived up to the program of 

 general usefulness. The addresses, and 

 quite naturally the papers, have been pre- 

 pared with reference to the zoologists 



within the circle rather than with refer- 

 ence to those who are not specialists and in. 

 whom we should foster and develop an in- 

 terest in the science for the general good. 



In this, I think, lies the suggestion of 

 the point where we shall discover our weak- 

 ness and the hope for a wider influence and 

 usefulness. 



The Society of Naturalists can not be 

 justified unless it really is what the name 

 intimates, and under the present system of 

 organizations and affiliations its meetings 

 can not ti'uly be meetings of naturalists 

 unless the botanLsts, zoologists and other 

 naturalists meet at the same place and 

 time. The botanists have kept in close 

 touch with Section G of the Association, 

 but the zoologists have recently tended 

 toward independence and separation from 

 Section F by making the meeting places of 

 the association a minor factor in the selec- 

 tion of the meeting places of their societies. 



Are, there any reasons why zoologists 

 should emulate the exaniple of the botan- 

 ists and show a keener interest in the pos- 

 sibilities of Section F? I thinlv there are, 

 and I shall try to present one that has been 

 uppermost in my thoughts recently. 



I shall not enumerate the social and per- 

 sonal advantages, of meeting at the same 

 time and place set for numerous other sci- 

 entific societies and sections of the associa- 

 tion. These advantages have been fully 

 presented and without doubt are admitted 

 by all of us. At present there is upper- 

 most in my mind just one point of view, 

 namely, Section F as the zoologists ' natu- 

 ral avenue to the general public. 



As a foundation for my plea for a wider 

 usefulness of Section F, I postulate the fol- 

 lowing two propositions : 



1. No scientific organization in this 

 country receives such general attention 

 and, for a time at least, creates so wide- 

 spread an interest in human knowledge 



