May 17, 191S] 



SCIENCE 



473 



later, appear in the course of every normal 

 human existence. Nor is it necessary to 

 point out either their dominating impor- 

 tance or the fact that, in the efiScient life, 

 they must be met, frankly, successfully. 



What is zoolog}' able to contribute toward 

 this end? 



Our answer to this question will depend 

 upon what we conceive zoology to be. 

 Owing to the modern tendency toward 

 specialization in the biological sciences, ex- 

 isting conceptions do not form a very com- 

 pact and homogeneous mass. I shall not 

 take time carefully to discriminate them, 

 however ; since they differ for the most part 

 by limitation only. They exhibit varying 

 degrees of incompleteness. One no longer 

 expects morphologists and physiologists, 

 taxonomists and experimental embrj-olo- 

 gists to agree on a common definition of 

 their common subject. This may be a 

 weakness of the professional attitude ; or it 

 may not. But a definition that will in- 

 clude all that these varieties of zoologist 

 might severally propose, will be clear 

 enough for the present discussion. At the 

 pame time, it will be sufficiently broad. 

 Though common ground maj' not be occu- 

 pied, common limits may thus be set. 



Thus defined, zoology exhibits certain 

 attributes that are possessed in common 

 iwith the basic inorganic sciences, physics 

 and chemistrj-; and certain other attri- 

 J)utes that pertain in general to it alone. 

 Like physics and chemistry, zoology is an 

 organized body of facts and hj-potheses de- 

 veloped by the inductive method, and safe- 

 guarded by processes of verification that 

 become more rigorous and searching in 

 each science as it develops. Like them, 

 though in less degree, it is an experimental 

 ficience ; and aspires to a closer kinship 

 with them by virtue of the recent increased 

 interest in quantitative methods. 



So far, the inorganic sciences and zool- 

 ogy are essentially similar. As soon, how- 

 ever, as the question of content arises, a 

 .significant difference appears. For the 

 facts of zoology, though they rest ulti- 

 anately on a physico-chemical substratum, 

 present as a rule aspects so unlike the cus- 

 tomary phenomena of the inorganic world 

 as to produce far different effects upon the 

 imagination. It is a truism that the imagi- 

 nation takes its color from experience. But 

 it is none the less important because of 

 that. Indeed, it is for this very reason that 

 neither physics nor chemistry nor both to- 

 gether can be an adequate substitute for 

 zoology as an aid in the solution of the di- 

 verse human problems that have been noted 

 ^bove. Man is an animal ; one species 

 among a hundred thousand; one living 

 mechanism among countless millions, con- 

 trolled by the same factors at bottom that 

 control them all. These, however, are not 

 generally recognized facts. For man is 

 also a mechanism of a complexity that 

 baffles his understanding and confuses his 

 theories of control. Though himself a unit 

 of the living world, his conduct appears to 

 have been strangely free from the influence 

 of a biological point of view. He has writ- 

 ten treatises on philosophy that, exhibiting 

 a commendable knowledge of Newtonian 

 mechanics, commonly show no comparable 

 sign of biological experience. His art criti- 

 cism is as j'ct dominated by a literary tradi- 

 tion from which it only exceptionally frees 

 itself by some innovation as refreshing as 

 it is rare. Religion has always been slow to 

 adopt the demonstrations of science, espe- 

 cial I j' those that touch her traditions most 

 intimately. Rules and dogmas readily 

 usurp the functions of facts. This is amply 

 true in the pedagogy of zoology itself. Real 

 values here are still matters of varj-ing 

 opinion. The reason is in all cases essen- 



