Apeil 17, 1896.] 



SCIENCE. 



597 



VIVISECTION. 



Editor of Science : I note with regret 

 several errors in the report (Science, April 3d) 

 of my paper on ' Vivisection ; Its Objects and 

 Results,' read before the Anthropological 

 Society of Washington at its meeting on March 

 3d. 



I shall only correct the one which first meets 

 the eye and which makes me appear to have 

 made a very ridiculous statement. The report 

 commences as follows: "In the course of his 

 paper Dr. Sternberg said that by dissection of 

 dead plants and animals only can we determine 

 the nature of their functions." The following 

 quotation from my manuscript shows what I 

 really said : 



' ' By means of the experimental method the 

 chemist has succeeded' in analyzing air, earth 

 and water, which were regarded by the ancients 

 as elements, and has learned to manufacture in 

 his laboratory, by synthetic processes, many 

 of the complex organic substances found in na- 

 ture. By experiment the physicist has demon- 

 strated the persistence of force and the corela- 

 tion of the various modes of motion known to 

 us as heat, electricity, etc. He has learned to 

 recognize the elements of the chemist in distant 

 suns by means of the spectroscope and has re- 

 cently shown us that certain ethereal vibrations 

 may pass through wood and metal as light rays 

 pass through glass. 



"In like manner biologists and physicians 

 have established the facts which constitute our 

 knowledge of biology in all its branches. Used 

 in its broadest sense, this term includes animal 

 and vegetable physiology, animal and vegetable 

 pathology, aetiology, morphology, embryology, 

 psychology and sociology. * Now, it is evident 

 that all questions relating to these various 

 branches of biological knowledge must be de- 

 termined by the observation of living organisms 

 and by experiments upon living plants and 

 animals. To some extent the study of mor- 

 •phology and of pathology constitutes an excep- 

 tion to this general rule, inasmuch as these 

 branches of biological science also call for the 

 dissection of dead plants and animals. Our 

 knowledge of animal and vegetable histology, 

 of human anatomy and of the results of disease 

 processes has been obtained in this way, and 



could not have been obtained in any other way. 

 But the dissection of dead plants and animals can- 

 not determine the functions of the various ana- 

 tomical elements and organs revealed by such 

 dissections, although aided by the microtome, 

 differential staining methods, the microscope, 

 etc." 



Geo. M. Stebnbeeg. 



Washington, D. C. 



instinct. 



Editor of Science : Prof. Lucas seems to 

 me to have advanced this discussion on in- 

 stinct by his reference to a letter in Nature, 

 which appeared in Vol. 52, page 30. Accord- 

 ing to the writer, it is customary for the Asamese 

 natives to ' teach ' the young jungle fowls to 

 peck. 



If this be true, what then becomes of Prof. 

 Morgan's distinction? 



As a matter of fact, if one observes a good 

 many chicks, he will find that a large propor- 

 tion of the birds never peck without suggestion 

 (the term 'teach' seems objectionable) from 

 the hen or some substitute. The chief value 

 of such facts grows out of their showing that in- 

 stincts are never perfect and never of that type 

 once believed in — the unalterable, inevitable 

 and unvarying — like the rising and setting 

 of the sun ; and for such rigid notions the re- 

 ports of some scientists are in part responsible. 

 It sometimes happened that experimenters 

 in biology, etc., omit the exceptions and re- 

 port only 'good experiments,' so that a false 

 view of the case must necessarily arise. Prof. 

 Baldwin seems to adopt Prof. Morgan's views, 

 for he refers to the observation that the chicks 

 drank ' only after they had the taste of water 

 by accident or by imitating the old fowl.' 

 Granted — but they also peck only after seeing 

 small objects under certain conditions, and there 

 is no instinct that does not require some stimu- 

 lus in the environment to bring it into action. 

 The mechanism is ready, but it is useless with- 

 out this stimulus. 



If one knew but of those domestic chicks or 

 those jungle chicks that peck only on seeing 

 this act, one might speak of a certain imperfec- 

 tion in the instinct of pecking, as, if you will, in 



