February 6, 1891.] 



SCIENCE. 



77 



of the same generation, and five in which neither parent has 

 deaf relatives of the same generation. 



Of the twenty-six families in which both parents are con- 

 genitally deaf and have hearing children only, there is none 

 in which either j>arent has a deaf parent, so far as reported, 

 twelve families in which both parents have deaf relatives of 

 the same generation, eleven families in which one parent 

 has deaf relatives of the same generation, and three families 

 in which neither parent has deaf relatives of the same gen- 

 eration. 



It will be noticed in the table given above that nearly 

 one-half of the marriages are without issue, so far as we 

 have been able to learn. It is probable that in some 

 cases there have been children of whom we have received no 

 account. In other cases the marriages are of recent date. 

 But making due allowance for all these, the proportion of 

 sterile marriages is still very large, much exceeding that in 

 the general population. It is a serious question whether 

 nature alone is responsible for this barrenness. 



Job Williams. 



THE EELATION BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC AND ECO- 

 NOMIC ENTOMOLOGY.^ 



The subject of this address is not of the kind usually . 

 chosen for similar occasions, but is of none the less interest 

 and importance. It is one, also, that is in full harmony 

 with the genius of this society, which is the recognition of 

 the pre-eminence of what is called the philosophy of science. 

 Another reason makes it of especial immediate importance 

 to us. Economic entomology is upon the verge of an era 

 of great advancement. The establishment of the agricultural 

 experiment stations have added to its ranks more young men 

 of scientific training and ability, perhaps, than have ever en- 

 gaged in this line of investigation. If economic entomology 

 is but a phase of scientiSc entomology, then we want to put 

 forth especial efforts to assimilate this young blood in our 

 ranks: if, on the other hand, they are different and distinct, 

 the difference will become more and more apparent as eco- 

 nomic entomology develops, and we should define our posi- 

 tion as on the side of pure science. 



I believe that the pure sciences are distinct from the eco 

 nomic sciences; that this is the primary division of science. 

 We seem to be prone, in this utilitarian age, to try to find 

 excuse for the pursuit of pure science by holding up the 

 possibility of applying our discoveries for economic ends. 

 Let us recognize, and not act as though we were ashamed of, 

 the fact that the sole aim of the student of pure science is 

 the discovery of truth, catering to human wants being 

 entirely out of his province. 



It may be said, that, laying aside this matter of sentiment, 

 the human wants are supplied through the discoveries of 

 science, and that this is simply the application of science for 

 economic purposes, or, to put it a little stronger, that eco- 

 nomics are but applied sciences. Such a statement comes from 

 the conception that facts are, or in some way become, the 

 peculiar property of a science. This is not the case, however 

 Perhaps, if we could see all the intimate relations sciences 

 have to each other, we should say that every fact belongs to 

 every science; at any rate, we could scarcely name a fact 

 which when closely viewed has not more than one bearing. 

 An example of the far-reaching character of a fact is that of 

 the origin of species through evolution. When Darwin es- 



^ Annual address of tlie retiring president of the Cambridge Entomological 

 Club, Charles W. Woodwortb, Fayetteville, Ark., at its meeting, Jan. 9, 1891 

 (from Psyche). 



tablished^the truth of this fact, it soon came to be recognized 

 that this basal fact of evolution was a fundamental principle 

 of almost every other science which had occupied the at- 

 tention of man. For economic purposes it is the facts which 

 are appropriated, and in the same way that the biologist ap- 

 propriates the facts discovered by the chemist. Economic 

 sciences no more become departments or applications of other 

 sciences by using some of the same facts than biology be- 

 comes a department or application of chemistry. 



It may be further contended that in the cases cited above 

 we have to do with real sciences, but that the so-called eco- 

 nomic sciences have no right to the title of science, that 

 they are essentially different. This will lead us to a con- 

 sideration of what a science is. We have just seen that it 

 does not consist of a body of facts peculiar to itself ; but, on 

 the other hand, it is evident that facts are closely connected 

 with it, that it depends indeed on a set of facts, and, further, 

 that these facts have some definite relation to each other and 

 are susceptible of a rational classification. This classification 

 is not the science, as it cannot express nearly all the relation- 

 ships, but these relationships do constitute the science. Any 

 one science does not comprehend all the bearings of any fact, 

 but only such as have a relation to that one subject. The 

 science of entomology, for example, consists of the relation- 

 ship of the facts to insects. The relation of the same facts 

 to the subject of plant-diseases belongs to another science. 

 When the subject is economic, the production of honey, the 

 feeding of stock, or the like, are there any grounds upon 

 which we can refuse it the title of science ? 



The economic sciences are all infantile, many perhaps not 

 yet even conceived of by man. They are the only true 

 foundation to the useful arts. Agriculture is a science, 

 though hidden by a mass of misconception and empiricism. 

 It must make its advances by the same methods that have 

 made the pure sciences what they are. A clear conception 

 of the object and structure of the science and experimentation 

 with all the conditions under control are essential. Eco- 

 nomic entomology as generally understood is chiefly a de- 

 partment of agriculture, but includes much heterogeneous 

 material. To be a scientifically rational term, it must, like 

 some of the genera of the older naturalists, be restricted. I 

 can in no better way show the difference between it and 

 scientific entomology than to indicate the parts of economic 

 entomology, and show where they belong among the eco- 

 nomic sciences. 



Insects of economic importance may be grouped into six cat- 

 egories: first, those directly injurious toman, which properly 

 forms a department of medicine; second, those attacking the 

 domestic animals, a part of veterinary medicine; third, those 

 injuring cultivated plants, which includes by far themajorpart 

 of the injurious insects, and to which the term "economic en- 

 tomology " should be restricted (it is only a part, and per- 

 haps not a natural part, of the science which deals with the 

 diseases of cultivated plants) ; fourth, those which destroy 

 other property (in this category are the insects attacking furs, 

 woollen goods, etc., and the food-stuffs, which belong to 

 domestic economy and at the same time to commerce ; 

 library insects belong to library economy, and so on) ; 

 fifth, those directly beneficial to man, which includes the 

 bee, the silk-worm, etc., — industries which form one of the 

 primary divisions of agriculture; sixth, those indirectly 

 beneficial to man by destroying the injurious insects (these 

 insects, of coui'se, belong to the sciences that consider the in- 

 sects which are their victims). 



Finally, to recapitulate, scientific entomology is a depart- 



