60 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. LV, No. 1412 



nothing at all. Nothing that we have witnessed 

 in the contemporary world can oolorably be 

 interpreted as providing the sort of evidence 

 required. 



Twenty years ago, de Vries . made what 

 looked like a promising attempt to supply 

 this so far as Oenothera was concerned. In 

 the light of modern experiments, especially 

 those of Renner, the interest attaching to the 

 polymorphism of Oenothera has greatly de- 

 veloped, but in application to that phenomenon 

 the theory of mutation falls. We see novel 

 forms appearing, but they are no new species 

 of Oenothera, nor are the parents which pro- 

 duce them pure or homozygous forms. Ren- 

 ner's identification of the several complexes 

 allocated to the male and female sides of the 

 several types is a wonderful and significant 

 piece of analysis introducing us to new geneti- 

 eal conceptions. The Oenotheras illustrate in 

 the most striking fashion how crude and in- 

 adequate are the suppositions which we enter- 

 tained before the world of gametes was re- 

 vealed. The ajjpearance of the plant tells us 

 little or nothing of these things. In Mendelism, 

 we learnt to appreciate the implication of the 

 fact that the organism is a double structure, 

 containing ingredients derived from the mother 

 and from the father respectively. We have 

 now to admit the further conception that be- 

 tween tlie male and female sides of the same 

 plant these ingredients may be quite different- 

 ly apportioned, and that the genetical com- 

 position of each may be so distinct that the 

 systematist might without extravagance recog- 

 nize them as distinct specifically. If then our 

 plant may by appropriate treatment be made 

 to give off two distinct forms, why is not that 

 phenomenon a true instance of Darwin's origin 

 of species? In Darwin's time it must have 

 been acclaimed as exactly supplying all and 

 more than he ever hoped to see. We know 

 that that is not the true interpretation. For 

 that which comes out is no new creation. 



Only those who are keeping up with these 

 new developments can fully appreciate their 

 vast significance or anticipate the next step. 

 That is the province of the geneticist. Nevei-- 

 theless, I am convinced that biology would 



greatly gain by some cooperation among work- 

 ers in the several branches. I had expected 

 that genetics would provide at once common 

 ground for the systematist and the laboratory 

 worker. This hope has been disappointed. 

 Each still keeps apart. Systematic literature 

 grows precisely as if the genetical discoveries 

 had never been made and the geneticists more 

 and more withdraw each into his special ''claim" 

 — a most lamentable result. Both are to blame. 

 If "we cannot persuade the systematists to come 

 to us, at least we can go to them. They too 

 have built up a vast edifice of knowledge which 

 they are willing to share with us, and which 

 we greatly need. They too have never lost 

 that longing for the truth about evolution 

 which to men of my date is the salt of bio- 

 logy, the impulse which made us biologists. 

 It is from them that the raw materials for our 

 researches are to be drawn, which alone can 

 give catholicity and breadth to our studies. 

 We and the systematists have to devise a com- 

 mon language. 



Both we and the systematists have every- 

 thing to gain by a closer alliance. Of course 

 we must specialize, but I suggest to educa- 

 tionists that in biology at least specialization 

 begins too early. In England certainly harm 

 is done by a system of examinations discourag- 

 ing to that taste for field natural history and 

 collecting, spontaneous in so many young 

 people. How it may be on this side, I can 

 not say, but with us attainments of that kind 

 are seldom rewarded, and are too often 

 despised as trivial in comparison with the 

 stereotyped biology which can be learnt from 

 test-books. Nevertheless, given the aptitude, 

 a very wide acquaintance with nature and the 

 diversity of living things may be acquired be- 

 fore the age at which more intensive study 

 must be begun, the best preparation for re- 

 search in any of the branches of biology. 



The separation between the laboratory men 

 and the systematists already imperils the work, 

 I might almost say the sanitj^, of both. The 

 systematists will feel the gi-ound fall from be- 

 neath their feet, when they learn and realize 

 what genetics has accomplished, and we, close 

 students of specially chosen examples, may 



