April 12, 1918] 



SCIENCE 



357 



how evolution works. Function played a mi- 

 nor role in these classic studies, comparativ* 

 anatomj', comparative embryology, compara- 

 tive paleozoology and paleo-botany — all con- 

 cerned with form, holding the fort. Hence, it 

 is quite natural that these subdivisions of biol- 

 ogy should persist with a lion's share for a 

 time. In fact the generation of comparative 

 anatomists, comparative embryologists and 

 , other morphological students is still with us. 

 When we consider that the so-called "experi- 

 mentalist " school, arising with Roux, Morgan, 

 Loeb and others, took its inception only some- 

 what over a score of years ago, and that this 

 school has been the first to direct the attention 

 of zoologists to fields other than those culti- 

 vated by the verifiers of Darwin, we should 

 not wonder that the fundamental aspect of 

 biology, as far as teaching is concerned, which 

 changes slowly, is principally morphological. 



Now it is an interesting suggestion that 

 although the biologists following Darwin were 

 distinctly students of form, the founder of the 

 theory which bears his name, along with his 

 immediate associates, such as his "Bull-dog, 

 Huxley," were really more interested in fvmc- 

 tion than in form. Darwin's studies in climb- 

 ing plants, in mould formation and in other 

 things which may be called " dynamic," were 

 of the spirit of the physiologist; he was inter- 

 ested in the manner in which the things 

 worked, rather than in the varieties of form. 

 Huxley for his part lamented that his career 

 had not carried him closer to physiology. 



We have seen how morphological aspects 

 dominated and still dominate biology, espe- 

 cially zoology, even in the face of the early ap- 

 preciation of things dynamic by the men 

 whose researches gave inception to our sci- 

 ences of biology. We have now to learn why 

 physiology has been so slow to become rec- 

 ognized by the zoologists. 



Mammalian physiology has outstripped all 

 other functional studies. The medical school 

 has persisted as a continuum from the times 

 of the Greeks. Moreover, we should recognize 

 why it has existed as a continuum; its rela- 

 tion to the art of medicine has insured this. 



Given a subject which has intimate bearing 

 upon not alone the welfare of the himnan in- 

 dividual, but upon his very life, we may well 

 suppose that it will develop faster and receive 

 more prompt attention than a subject which, 

 although perhaps bearing likewise upon the 

 welfare of man, yet does not do so directly. 

 It is natural then that the medical physiolog- 

 ists should have the lion's share of function. 

 Medicine, again, is intensely eclectic, hunting 

 and prying into the uttermost corners of hu- 

 man experience for things which it may take 

 to itself and make a part of its own fabric. 

 Consequently, we have been deluded with the 

 apparent catholicity of human physiology and 

 have been resting securely in the belief that it 

 would take care of all our functional problems, 

 be they of himian reference or more general. 

 It is true that the human physiologists have 

 contributed largely to all that is worth while 

 in functional studies. It is likewise true that 

 they have failed to pursue the enigma beyond 

 their own field save in isolated cases. They 

 have always been interested in the cell studies 

 of the biologist, but their contributions have 

 been meager. We have instances, such as the 

 classic researches of Fr. Miescher upon the 

 cells of pus formation, out of which came our 

 modem conception of the construction of 

 nucleic acid at the hands of Jones and P. A. 

 Levine; the studies of Claude Bernard upon 

 oxidation of sugars; the fundamental studies 

 of energetics (or thermodynamics) of Eubner, 

 Atwater, Benedict and others; yet these stud- 

 ies are but instances and emphasize the pau- 

 city of contributions of medical physiologists 

 to the fundamental problems of the cell, which, 

 if we agree with the great pathologist, Rudolf 

 Virchow, represents the terminus ad quern of 

 all biological work, be it "biological," botan- 

 ical, zoological, medical, or what-not. 



The fact remains, then, that if the zoologist 

 is to round out his science, making it equiva- 

 lent for animals what botany is for plants, he 

 can not expect the medical physiologist to take 

 care of his problems in animal fimction. 

 Comparative physiology, which has received a 

 strong impetus in the " Handbuch " of Win- 

 terstein and in that of Jordan, will never 



