JANUARY 4, 1901.] 
development of exact statistical methods in 
the study of variation, and in many other 
ways, among which we should not forget the 
mention of the development of courses of 
instruction in the so-called “Nature-study,’ 
and the recent appearance of admirable 
text-books in which anatomical detail is 
largely—perhaps too largely —subordinated 
to the older natural history. I think, too, 
that we have a right in this connection to 
point to the influence that such associations 
as this Society have exerted in widening the 
range of common interests and fostering the 
spirit of scientific fellowship and coopera- 
tion. 
With these changes has come a better 
understanding between the field naturalist 
and the laboratory morphologist and physi- 
ologist, who in earlier days did not always 
live on the best of terms. I shall never 
forget the impression made on me many 
years ago, shortly after returning from a 
year of study in European laboratories, by 
a remark made to me in the friendliest 
spirit by a much older naturalist, who was 
one of the foremost systematic and field 
naturalists of his day, and enjoyed a world- 
wide reputation. ‘I fear,’’ he said, “ that 
you have been spoiled as a naturalist by 
this biological craze that seems to be run- 
ning riot among the younger men. I do 
not approve of it all.” Iwas hardly in a 
position to deny the allegation ; but candor 
compels me to own to having had a suspi- 
cion that while there may have been a mote 
in the biological eye, a microscope of suffi- 
cient power might possibly have revealed 
something very like a beam in that of the 
systematists of the time. However that 
may have been, it is undeniable that at 
that period, or a little later, a lack of mu- 
tual understanding existed between the field 
naturalist and the laboratory workers which 
found expression in a somewhat picturesque 
exchange of compliments, the former receiv- 
ing the flattering appellation of the ‘ Bug- 
SCIENCE. 
19 
hunters’ the latter the ignominious title of 
the ‘Section-cutters,’ which on some irrev- 
erent lips was even degraded to that of the 
‘Worm-slicers’! (For the sake of complete- 
ness it may be well to add that at a later 
period the experimental morphologists fared 
no better, being compelled to go through 
the world under the stigma of the epithet 
‘Egg-shakers.’) I dare say there was on 
both sides some justification for these deli- 
cate innuendoes. Let us for the sake of 
argument admit that the section-cutter was 
not always sure whether he was cutting an 
Ornithorhynchus or a pearly Nautilus, and 
that at times perhaps he did lose sight of 
out-of-doors natural history and the living 
organism as he wandered among what 
Michael Foster called the ‘ pitfalls of car- 
mine and Canada balsam’; but let us in 
justice mildly suggest that the bug-hunter, 
too, like Huxley’s celebrated old lady, was 
sometimes a trifle hazy as to whether the 
cerebellum was inside or outside the skull, 
and did not sufficiently examine that hoary 
problem as to whether the hen came from 
the egg or the egg from the hen, and by 
what kind of process. The lapse of time 
has in truth shown that each had something 
to learn from the other. The field natur- 
alist came to realize that he could not at- 
tain right conclusions in the investigation 
of the larger problems before him without 
more thorough studies in anatomy and de- 
velopment. The laboratory morphologist 
learned better to appreciate the fact that 
his refined methods of technique are after 
all but a means toward the better under- 
standing of the living organism and its 
relation to its environment. On both sides, 
accordingly, the range of common inter- 
ests and sympathies was extended ; and 
some of the splendid monographs of recent 
years bear witness to the value of the re- 
sults that have flowed from the combina- 
tion of anatomical, embryological, system- 
atic and ecological research. 
