Apkil 30, 1909] 



SCIENCE 



683 



of previous years, and a proper introduc- 

 tion of that fresh atmosphere which brings 

 with it renewed endeavor, a broader and 

 more hopeful outlook and the inspiration to 

 new activities and new conquests. I say 

 this because we must be quite sure that 

 neither the whole fault nor even a part of 

 it lies with ourselves. But viewing the 

 progress of events in the light of this quali- 

 fication, as well as of the fact that we do 

 not stand alone in our dilemma, the con- 

 viction is forced upon us that our difficult 

 situation is primarily and chiefly due to the 

 anomalous relations which have been estab- 

 lished between us and the American Asso- 

 ciation. It appears to me, therefore, that 

 while the general sentiment has forced con- 

 clusions based upon the alternative of a 

 revision of our relations to that body or 

 extinction, the real issue should be stated 

 in terms of continued companionship. To 

 my mind there should be no question of the 

 society abandoning its chosen field of use- 

 fulness in which it has won such distinc- 

 tion. The issue is a clear one and should 

 be won or lost on the simple question as to 

 whether we shall continue to meet with the 

 American Association or choose our own 

 time and place. 



Never in the history of the biological 

 sciences, using that expression in its most 

 comprehensive sense, have there been such 

 rapid, extended and far-reaching changes, 

 both of thought and method, as during the 

 last twenty years, and without assuming 

 the role of a prophet, it is probably safe 

 to assert that the next two decades will 

 witness even more profound changes. A 

 society such as this, therefore, should al- 

 ways hold itself in readiness to adjiist itself 

 to altered conditions, and while exercising 

 a due conservatism, it should, nevertheless, 

 be prepared to meet the situation imposed 

 by altered points of view, new methods, 

 fresh hypotheses, newly ascertained facts 

 and proved generalizations. In such ways 



alone does it become possible to infuse new 

 life into those whose ripe experience may 

 excuse a certain degree of complacency; or 

 to awaken enthusiasm in those who are at 

 the threshold of the richest experience that 

 can fall to the lot of man. 



Our last president indicated in his ad- 

 dress before the society, that the changes 

 introduced by abandoning the generalized 

 methods of the old school of natural his- 

 tory for the more specialized methods of the 

 new school of science introduced some 

 thirty years ago, shortly led to a cleavage 

 between the biological sciences which ex- 

 tended to a similar separation of geology 

 and paleontology. That botany and zool- 

 ogy should become more independent was 

 regarded as both natural and unavoidable, 

 and, from many points of view, most de- 

 sirable. Viewing the cleavage of paleon- 

 tology from geology, from the standpoint 

 of efficiency in scientific development, and 

 the normal relations of cognate subjects, 

 we need express no feelings of regret, for 

 however valuable the evidence of fossil 

 forms may be to the geologist as a working 

 force, there is no natural relation between 

 the two. It has, however, been a slow and 

 somewhat tedious process to gain recogni- 

 tion of the fact that paleontology is not a 

 science in itself, and that it does not bear 

 any direct or precise relation to geology; 

 but that it is a composite subject whose 

 chief members belong to the domains of 

 zoology and botany. Were the results of 

 this cleavage to be expressed in no more 

 extreme form than what has been indicated, 

 they might be regarded with seeming indif- 

 ference, but, as in all reforms, the swinging 

 pendulum has been allowed to continue too 

 far on its one-sided course, and for years 

 the biological sciences have suffered an un- 

 symmetrical development which at times 

 has given rise to many heart burnings and 

 false conceptions of what the science really 

 stands for. The lingering tendency to per- 



